Skip to main content

About your Search

20130116
20130116
STATION
KQED (PBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 2
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 63 (some duplicates have been removed)
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 4:00pm EST
, right? xiv, as you see. we've got them moving higher today. david: the battle over the debt ceiling and paying the bills that d.c. is racking up continues. representative jerry nadler, happens to be my representative, he is looking to stop future fights. he has introduced legislation to end the debt ceiling debate by getting rid of the debt ceiling all together. but would that give too much power to the president? that is the argument. that is the debate. we'll take you and jerry nadler there coming up. liz: germany's central bank pulling some of its gold out of new york and paris. we have somebody who says you need to look at this because it could turn out to be good news for gold prices. he also says we could see 1900 an ounce by the end of the year. find out why and how you could play this one. david: we all love gold. first before we get to all those stories we'll tell you what drove the markets with today's data download. it is a mixed day on wall street. dow settling lower while the nasdaq and the s&p posting gains the dow snapping a five-day winning streak. technology and energy
Current
Jan 15, 2013 5:00pm PST
what our government does in the weeks and months ahead. okay. quick question about the debt ceiling. why not? now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? irene, drop the itch. we dropped the itch, you can too. maximum strength scalpicin® is not a shampoo so you can stop intense itch fast, wherever you are. i dropped the itch. drop the itch with scalpicin®. the natural energy of peanuts and delicious, soft caramel. to fill you up and keep you moving, whatever your moves. payday. fill up and go! [ rosa ] i'm rosa and i quit smoking with chantix. when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urg
FOX News
Jan 16, 2013 1:00pm PST
that keeps creating that. why do we do that? >> the problem is not the debt ceiling or debt limit the problem is the debt. the reason why we have a legal limit on the debt if we keep borrowing we're going to hurt everyone who lives there. i think the president is trying to scare people and distract from the main issue. he said he was going to cut the deficit his first year in office we doubled it every year. it's time to make hard decisions. there is ongoing wrong with suggesting over the next ten years, we stop borrowing from our children's future and we balance our budget. we can do that. i think most americans will agree. >> neil: you got to wonder, if the mainstream media that republicans are being obstructionists if they dare reject raising the debt ceiling but they didn't do it to a single democrat seven years ago including senator barack obama, then republicans are damned no matter what they do? >> it's part of the strategy of this administration on fiscal cliff, on all kinds of issues is to frighten people, frighten seniors. we need to reassure seniors with their truth, th
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 1:00pm EST
can avoid the debt ceiling showdown, get rid of the debt ceiling altogether. tracy: and grounded, and other emergency landing for boeing's dreamliners. planned as the top two airlines stopped planes from flying altogether. lori: on a post-it note just isn't enough. employee who allegedly stole $400,000 worth of copy machine toner and resold it on the black market. you have to hear it to believe it. tracy: top of the hour. nicole petallides on the floor of the new york stock exchange. we can't seem to find our footing. nicole: interestingly enough we are not too far off of the unchanged line but we are up six of the last eight trading weeks. hovering around five year highs. as you noted early on, talk a lot about boeing weighing on the dow jones industrials today play with one issue after another. the s&p 500 down one point at 1471. it is also earning season. how they are faring. they came out obviously earnings-per-share eating earnings slightly miss. a new high for dell. and all those names are lower. continue to follow earnings here all week on fox business network. we have general
Current
Jan 15, 2013 9:00pm PST
weeks and months ahead. okay. quick question about the debt ceiling. these talking points, that the right have, about the "heavy hand of government" ... i want to have that conversation. let's talk about it. really? you're going to lay people off because now the government is going to help you fund your healthcare. really? i want to have those conversations, not to be confrontational, but to understand what the other side is saying, and i'd like to arm our viewers with the ability to argue with their conservative uncle joe over the dinner table. ♪ ♪ the trucks are going farther. the 2013 ram 1500 with best-in-class fuel economy. engineered to move heaven and earth. guts. glory. ram. the new ram 1500. motor trend's 2013 truck of the year. [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands? >> john: before we could even shake off our collective fiscal cliff fatigue it's now back to the doldrums of the debt ceiling debate, my friends. yes, unfortunat
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 6:00pm EST
his request for yet another debt ceiling height. gerri: how did you react to the presence tone in that last press conference when he talked about his upcoming debt ceiling despite? he seemed a little angrier you guys. >> yes, he did. he seemed annoyed at the fact that he had to deal with a coequal branch of government. a group of pesky individuals elected by the people. >> yes, that's right. we have the audacity to insist that we follow the law and that we continue to make the law and yes, we have our work cut out for us. >> i was noticing that since 1990, we have raised the debt ceiling 18 times. back in 1990 come the first time we raised it, the debt ceiling was $3.12 trillion. the debt ceiling is raised, the spending gets raised. and it never comes back down. >> that's right, it goes up and it never comes back down. in the past, sometimes we have insisted on cuts along the way. now we're finding ourselves in a position where we have $16.5 trillion of debt and cuts are not going to cut it anymore. it has to be more than cuts. it needs to be permanent structural spending reform.
MSNBC
Jan 16, 2013 11:00am PST
with her party, acknowledging the debt ceiling will have to be raised. we will get the read from mark murray and what's happening on both sides. secretary of state hillary clinton called the prime minister of algeria and a group claims they are holding a total of 41 hostages after occupying a natural gas complex. they were reportedly to punish algeria for allowing french jets to use the airspace in attacking a group linked to al qaeda. we will have more on the news, but seven americans reportedly being held hostage in algeria. we'll be right back. asional have constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues... with three strains of good bacteria. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. your soups are so awesomely delicious my husband and i can't stop eating 'em! what's...that... on your head? can curlers! tomato basil, potato with bacon... we've got a lot of empty cans. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. looks like you're in a pickle. yeah. can you get me o
CNBC
Jan 15, 2013 7:00pm EST
debt ceiling and cut spending and you can get all that done if you play your cards right. but what is the conservative advice for the republican party for the long run? what does the gop need to do to change it's message? and wheel ask pennsylvania governor comcore bet, we'll find out why people from virginia to maryland to new jersey are moving to his state and what will lance armstrong's doping admissions cost him. the lawsuits are already piling up. and possible criminal prosecution. but here is another question. could armstrong go to jail? the kudlow report begins right now. >> here is my quick take on his debt ceiling stand off. do not mess with the credit rating with the united states of america. however, you can race the debt ceiling and cut spending at the same time. on top of that, you kcan fix th $2 trillion situation. that is my take. charlie wrangle from new york and i begin with you. i don't understand why that can't be done. you can get that done. you are one of my buddies, but i object to you using the default. you have enough cash flow and the vast majority. i hate
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 5:00pm EST
has not yet named his successor. democrats proposed legislation to kill the debt ceiling even though some republicans may be ready to cave. either way, you'll be serious to know the matter what happens, the credit rating could still get whacked. and bus drivers go on strike stranding more than 100,000 kids, many of them disabled. at stake in this battle, the kids, and millions of your dollars of tax money. more money coming up. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choo any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ ale announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go naonal. go like a pro. your financial advisor should focus on your long-term goals, not their short-term agenda. [ male announcer ] join the nearly 7 million investors who think like you do. face time and think time make a difference. at edward
CSPAN
Jan 16, 2013 9:00am EST
the debt ceiling, which is that not everybody understand what the debt ceiling is about. the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling, which congress has to do periodically, gives the government the ability to pay existing bills. it doesn't create new deficits. it doesn't create new spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family, which is trying to improve its credit rating sank i know how we can save money, we won't pay off credit card bills. not the most effective way to improve your credit rating. it was the very slow solution to the debt ceiling in august 2011 i got the u.s. downgraded last time. so it's very, very important that all these issues are important but it's very, very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where our government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in the deal. as you mention it certainly went part way but it leaves another the issues still on the table, and additional negotiations and are loo
FOX Business
Jan 15, 2013 11:00pm EST
willing to say, you would be willing to risk not raising debt ceiling, producing a partial government shut down, to make that point? >> absolutely. i would much rather bring on a controlled problem, right now that perhaps could lead to us a solution for the greater problem. if we don't do this, neil,t and and i think you know, we'll have a debt collapse at some point in the future, at a time not of our chosing, en controlled and uncontrol able and we will not be able to fix it. in order to convince this president we need to reduce entitlement spending we have to go over the new cliff, if you will, for partial government shut down, i'll take that because we will prevent a bigger less controllable problem later. neil: will you be willing to take the blame, however unfairly it might be as producing the government shut down it so republicans that we have this financial anarchy? >> i hope what people would recognize, and people would realize, is that we cannot continue with trillion dollar deficits, period. the country will go in to a debt collapse. we will have problem like gre
FOX Business
Jan 15, 2013 8:00pm EST
debt ceiling next. but not all, fitch said that problem is we never seem to get around to deals with the problem behind that mess. quoting fitch a riley, fundamental credit strengths are eroded by large studily declining structure budget deficit, and high and rising public debt. what fitch is not saying, but almost screaming is, the washington sons of fitches are doing not about it, they screamed it. after the cliff, get ready for the crash. i'm not surprised we could still be cut. i'm surprised that fitch has not already done so, john campbell said that triple a rated countries do not we behave this way. i'm surprised it has not already happened. what do you think? >> i know, i just, you know there isal this talk if we get into a big fight over trying to reduce entitlements and making a long-term solution to this, that fitch or some rating agencies may cut our credit rating at this point. if that is what they are doing, they have it backwards. what they should do is they should look at reducing our credit rating, if we don't -- if we don't make some significant change in long temp p
WETA
Jan 16, 2013 6:30pm EST
. government to avoid defaulting on its debts even if the debt ceiling is not raised. >> and there is no reason for the government to default unless president obama and the democrats want us to. it's just a scare tactic to continue the spending that they don't want to address. that's why they keep saying, "oh, we're going to default. we're going to default. we're going to default." it's just not true. >> reporter: but talk like that scares many budget analysts in washington. they argue markets will see a failure by the unit ed states to pay any of its bills as a threat it could one day stop paying some or all of its bills, including interest on its debt. >> if we pay the chinese the interest we owe them on their sovereign debt holdings, on time and in full, but we don't pay social security recipients or armed services personnel their salaries, is that a default? well, of course it is. >> reporter: a recent inspector general's report found the treasury doesn't have the computer systems in prioritize some payments over others. so if the treasury runs short of cash, it would most likely
MSNBC
Jan 16, 2013 2:30am PST
republicans are making a mistake by trying to link the debt ceiling to a deal on spending cuts. >> in the end, it's a threat they can't sustain. no one is going to default. no one is going to allow united states to not pay its bills. no one is going to accept the economic costs. it rallies the entire business community to the president's side. i don't think we should pick fights where we're in a position that we can't, in fact, in the end enforce our will. because we have no evidence of president obama's going to compromise. i think the president is deliberately seeking confrontation. he's going out of his way to bully the house republicans. >> and allen simpson, the co-founder of the campaign to fix the debt, also warning against bargaining over the debt ceiling. >> do you believe the gop should be using the debt ceiling as a leverage point to get the president to agree to the cuts? >> i think that would be a grave mistake. i don't think that would solve anything. i know they're going to try it. how far we'll go, i have no idea. if you're a real conservative, really honest conservative witho
FOX News
Jan 16, 2013 8:00am PST
announcing a new plan to eliminate the debt ceiling, claiming the gop is exploiting the issue for political gain. doug mckelway is live in washington with more on the democratic plan and the road ahead. hi, doug. >> reporter: hi, jenna. this democratic plan in a nutshell would basically do away with the statute that calls for the debt ceiling in the first place, allowing spending in effect to go up and up and up without the artificial cap that the debt ceiling is indeed. democrats are explaining this in a press conference right now as we speak, so we'll be learning a lot more about it as the day progresses. republicans obviously deeply opposed to this thing, fearful that democrats will indeed use it to allow spending to go up and up. here is senator john barrasso speaking on fox news this morning. >> we have a spending problem in this country. people all across the country know it. they know it in wyoming. families have to balance their budget every year. many states do. we do in wyoming. it is time for the senate and the house and the president to get serious about limiting our spending an
FOX Business
Jan 15, 2013 9:00pm EST
debt ceiling? >> the ultimate impact is the president will have to make some tough choices, but this is a guy who says, do as i say, not as i have done and you correctly point out he voted against raising the debt ceiling. suddenly the table has turned. if he was smart he would be more conciliatory to republicans instead of on-duty challenging them. gerri: far from it. the president says the responsible thing to do. making a like the republicans still want to do anything responsible for are not concerned about the nation's debt. what would be the consequences of letting the debt ceiling just -- not paying any attention to it? would it be hazardous? is this going to be something bad for the country? >> not necessarily. gerri: let's let brad answered. >> what happens is overnight the government has to go to a balanced budget. consider we have deficits of a trillion dollars plus. that is not an easy task even for those of us at the cato institute you want a dramatically smaller federal government. it does not mean default. the federal government is collecting ten times as much revenue a
FOX News
Jan 16, 2013 10:00am PST
. >> megyn: thanks, trace. and a push to completely eliminate the debt ceiling once and for all effectively eliminating any legal checks on federal spending. up next, stu varney, what this could mean and why a whole new class of taxes is also now getting some buzz. and new controversy over reports that federal agents waited to arrest an illegal immigrant and a sex offender who worked for this powerful democratic senator, senator menendez, you saw in that picture there. what, what really went on? why was this done? an early morning rescue puts a whole new meaning on another brick in the wall. as firefighters-- did you watch this on america's news room with bill and martha? firefighters worked hours to free a woman who got stuck in a tight spot, how it happened. ♪ ♪ caught between a rock and a hard place ♪ bayer aspirin was the first thing the emts gave me. now, i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ woman ] learn from my story. before you begin an aspirin regimen. music: "make someone happy" music: "make
MSNBC
Jan 15, 2013 10:00pm PST
if the boehner rule will apply to the debt ceiling. >> if there is not a majority in the house republican conference to raise the debt limit but there is a majority in the house of representatives to raise a clean debt limit, would the leadership be willing to do that? >> you know, let's look at how do we avoid default on america and america's debt? how do we avoid these issues that are going to bankrupt the country long-term. >> the guy kept talking but he simply refused to answer chuck's question. he said a lot more words, but i'm not going to waste your time with what those words were. but rush limbaugh thinks that he knows what is going to happen. >> crisis to crisis, republicans always cave, but it is a never-ending cycle. let's go ahead, let's -- let's do the fiscal cliff. and let's take it to them on the debt ceiling. that is what we'll do on the debt limit. that is where we'll fight the battle. that is where we're take it to obama, that is where we'll make him pay and get the spending cuts. remember that? that is where we're at. we're now at the debt limit. and guess wh
CNBC
Jan 15, 2013 11:00pm EST
us debt. we are being told that the debt ceiling wrangling could be even worse for the country than going over the fiscal cliff. how is that for frightening? senator freddy krueger versus representative jason, hush-hush sweet speaker, whatever happened to baby budget? you get the picture so to speak. how about lululemon? this morning a reliable steady growth story. smaller paycheck. the end of the payroll tax holiday has to hurt retail doesn't it? and the facebook disappointment. you have this mystery announcement coming. instead we have an announcement of a tool to search information on big social networks. what a bust. yet the market didn't get hammered. there was no rally, and then we got the nap time and the fresh bull came to play into the bell. what is happening here? there have been different times along the way up where we had this same exact phenomenon like we are seeing here today. one at the beginning of the bull run. another occurred in the first three years in the '90s. we had about a half dozen since the new millennium. and every single case, every single one i can rec
MSNBC
Jan 16, 2013 6:00am PST
template for how, by the way, the debt ceiling might ultimately get raised. on the tax deal, house republican leaders had political cover from senate republicans. on sandy, chris christie provided the political cover, leaving house leaders, frankly, cowering. now the kotch brothers, through a group they backed, called americans for prosperity, are the latest to give boehner and other house leaders cover on the debt ceiling, as they get their rank and file to pick other political fights. tim phillips, president of americans for prosperity, told the financial times, quote, we're saying calibrate your message, focus on long-term spending instead of long-term debt. focusing on the debt ceiling makes the message more difficult. when i asked walden about the debt ceiling yesterday, he was clearly noncommittal, hinting on where the republican leadership maybe is on this. if there's not a majority in the house republican to raise the debt limit, but there is a majority in the house of representatives to raise a clean debt limit, would this leadership be willing to do that? >> you know, let
MSNBC
Jan 16, 2013 3:00pm PST
the party together. but it turns out that on everything from debt ceiling to sandy relief, they're just cracking up. joining me now is wes moore. he's author of the book the other wes moore. thanks to boet of you for being here tonight. >> great to be here. >> nia, isn't it going to take more than a few classes at a two-day retreat to fix what's wrong with the gop? >> i think that's probably right. if you just look back at what has happened so far not only in the 2012 election, but in this last fiscal cliff deal, we know that there's a lot of distension in boehner's ranks. so here we are trying to figure out a way forward. there's a lot of disagreement about spending cuts and what they want to fight over. is it debt ceiling, is it sequestration, is it the resolution later in march? they could use that bell to call them to order there but it's hard to think that they could find a path. you've got on the one hand, a lot of distension in the rarngs there. but, also, just public opinion seems to be stacked against them. they're on the wrong side of so many issues. they seem to be wanti
CNBC
Jan 16, 2013 1:00pm EST
wallet? a showdown over the debt ceiling with republicans using the threat of default to try and leverage spending cuts from the white house. representative peter welch is democrat from vermont and he has been calling for the president to envoc the 14th amendment to circumvent congress and protect the economy. congressman, welcome. good to have you with us. before we turn to the debt ceiling, i would like your reactions to the president's proposals to curb gun violence and whether you think those legislative proposals that he made have a chance of getting through either house of congress or both. >> i do. i mean, all of us are just astonished and appalled at what happened in newtown and the idea that a 6-year-old child would have 11 high capacity bullet designed by the military for combat pumped into that little child is really changing the discussion here. so i think the focus on practical things like high capacity magazines, like background checks that work, like trying to come up with appropriate assault weapon ban, these all make sense. and then his executive authority to mak
CNBC
Jan 16, 2013 3:00pm EST
the debt ceiling that are somewhat disturbing to the markets, the eventual solutions could be every bit as disturbing. >> and even bruce mccain with the uncertainties crowneding the economy and what's going on in washington, we've had big inflows into the market and to mutual funds and other things, and that's significant for you, isn't it? >> absolutely. we've seen a willingness to take more risk. i think the downside is that we're also seeing a bit of complacency come into the market, and with uncertainties, especially the fiscal cliff the sequel ahead of us, we think there's opportunities for some disruption of that positive feel-good feeling we're seeing in the market right now. >> all right. how do you want to allocate capital then, bruce? how are you investing in this environment? >> we think it's important not to be taking too little risk, so certainly making sure that you have adequate exposure, especially to things like the emerging markets where the fundamentals of growth are a lot better than they are in the united states is clearly important, but most of all making sure
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 9:20am EST
please end the debt ceiling. no more debt ceiling. you don't like that. judge napolitano: what do they mean? the treasury could borrow whatever it wanted by statute and not need an authorization? this would -- it is not constitutional but it would take 180 degrees from the rule of the road before the federal reserve. and the congress had to approve each and every borrower including the amount borrowed, interest paid and identity of the lender. the purchaser of the bond. these people, secretary of the treasury to borrow whatever it wants? stuart: i believe so. i have not heard the wording. judge napolitano: we are marching toward greece even faster than now. stuart: is it for your learning greek? you are laughing. i don't know. judge napolitano: thank you very much. stuart: we will take it. thank you very much. next, the chief of police in a new york town. he is for gun control and when you hear his personal story you may understand why. he is coming up next. stuart: it went up like a rocket and coming down today. we're talking chipotle, big loser today. earnings missed estimates.
PBS
Jan 15, 2013 10:00pm PST
were threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling. if congress didn't act by august 2, the federal government would be unable to pay its bills. >> in 2010, when all these republicans were running for congress, many of them avowed tea partiers and the rest of them riding the tea party wave, the subject of the impending debt ceiling came up frequently and virtually all of them campaigned saying... pledging not to raise the debt ceiling. >> narrator: early on, republican freshmen attended orientation sessions. republican strategist frank luntz ran one of them. >> and i asked the question, how many of you are going to vote for the debt ceiling? and only three or four of them raised their hands. and i said, if you vote for the debt ceiling, the people who put you in office are going to knock you out. >> if you vote for the debt ceiling, you're voting for your own death certificate, political death certificate. >> narrator: for his part, the president decided to try something new: personal politics. he figured he could connect to the republican leader, john boehner. >> obama told
CNBC
Jan 16, 2013 6:00am EST
because the debt ceiling concern and talks, it's been pretty much nonexistent on the industrial -- >> the markets at fresh five-year highs. >> yeah. it's all because we had the fiscal cliff. and it was so volatile coming into it. we saw some massive swings and massive breakdowns coming into it. it seemed like the market was all over the place. with the debt ceiling, everyone thinks they'll kick the can, raise the debt ceiling up, or get resolved within -- >> that mean the market's at risk? it would seem yes, right? >> see, if you -- my opinion of what will happen is if there's any small breakdown in it, you know, if there's threats that they may downgrade the s&p, whatever, we'll see a breakdown in s&p down to like 14.50, 14.40. but there are so many people waiting on the sidelines, so much cash. and people looking at u.s. equities over the safety play. they'll start coming in, they'll buy. it i think it's going to be a good year for the s&p this year. >> what does earnings season do? hearing from jpmorgan and goldman sachs, the financials have been a driver of major averages moving highe
FOX Business
Jan 15, 2013 10:00pm EST
do in the fiscal cliff debate, nor in the last debt ceiling by. how speaker john boehner and mitch mcconnell, for their part, conspicuously avoiding news cameras and silent at the administration's assault on the second amendment as it escalates. a backlash appears to be building in certain parts of the country. one republican congress gentleman requesting act unilaterally. and the state of texas introducing a measure that would make federal officials subject to prosecution. tonight we have the "a-team" to discuss the issue. in the sandy hook elementary school massacre rolling rock school safety and the idea of armed guards in schools across the country. one school district is not waiting for the president to act. karl cameron has the report. reporter: reporter: this steel town now has armed troopers guarding their public-school. >> the first reaction is to keep the kids at school say. >> whether we are right or wrong, we will do whatever it takes to protect the children. >> there is concern that any weapon in schools can create new risks. in july the more evidence that we have, the
MSNBC
Jan 15, 2013 7:00pm PST
republicans to come to their senses about the debt ceiling. and in the rewrite tonight, the idiotic things republicans are saying about guns, and why president reagan and president george w. bush would disagree with them. nothing. are you stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office. omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i could get used to this. [ male announcer ] yes, you could business pro. yes, you could. go national. go like a pro. kozachik, k >>> a quick update, joy reid and karen finney apparently didn't change the minds of the nra in the first segment, the ad regarding president obama has not been taken down. the ad ha
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 11:00pm EST
policies. second, you have the debt ceiling. it is a marketing tool the country hostage. we know there's going to be a fighter for the debt ceiling. in the past that feeling with a speed bump that reminded folks who are borrowing too much and needed to make changes. it could be a useful reminder. not because of sars are people really worry about the fate of the u.s. government and its economic damage, which is what we saw last time. the third piece, the fact government spending is going to expire in the triple witching hour of these issues is if this will close and is that going to force action of the hardest pieces still remaining for the fact that they still for all intents and purposes, it's good we didn't go to the fiscal cliff, good release revenue, but we basically did what we always do, which is punted the hard choices and try to declare bipartisan victory. it wasn't there. the question as to make make these next moments were set to getting us to really take on policies. and this is part of your question that will do it the necessary savings the next 10 years, but just as
FOX Business
Jan 16, 2013 12:00am EST
bernanke saying time to ditch the debt ceiling all together. is it as silly as he says it is? we'll debate that. more "money" ahead officemax has exactly the ink... your business needs... at prices that keep you...out of the red. this week get a bonus $15 itunes gift card with any qualifying $75 ink purchase. find thousands of big deals now... at officemax. ♪ music kids will spend 15 minutes watching online videos like this one. brushing for two minutes now, can save your child from severe tooth pain later. two minutes twice a day. they have the time. ♪ . melissa: so moving onto another budget fight and accusations that republicans will hold the debt ceiling hostage over spending cuts, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke said there is no practical purpose to the debt ceiling and it is a device to prevent the u.s. from paying its bills. why are we watching washington fight over it? maybe we should get rid of it. here is susan occhs, american banker columnist and former senior advisor to president obama and stephen hayes, "weekly standard" and fox news contributor. i will ask you both
FOX Business
Jan 15, 2013 7:00pm EST
for travel and personal and etc., and to watch homeland, according to the daily howler, taxpayers and nearly $200 on premium cable channels like showtime and cinemax. jimmy carter also got nearly $650 for a dish network package in his office. and "the new york times" subscription. this is all legal thanks to the former president back in 1958. folks fighting back, jason jacobs of utah has proposed a bill called the presidential allowance modernization act. eliminating taxpayer funding for each dollar the president runs over $400,000. it seems fair considering our former leaders are living in poverty. they have earned our respect, but have not earned free cable. that is just my "two cents more" and my bottom line tonight. coming up tomorrow, richardson of the history channels trento. that is it for tonight, have a great evening. lou: good evening, everybody. we are on the evening of the major political showdown tonight. this president is apparently on the verge of setting in motion just such an initiative. we don't know how far mr. obama plans to go with his efforts contain and constrain our second amendment rights. but what we do know tonight is this. reports from the white house indicate the president is looking at as many as 19 separate executive orders on gun control. press secretary jay carney refuses to shed light on what those executive orders entail. while acknowledging that the administration acknowledges it may have to work with congress to accomplish many of the president's goals. >> when we talk about efforts to reduce gun violence, we are talking not just about legislative action. the president has already identified things that congress has actively considered. either the legislation exists or is being worked on. he called on congress to pass the measures that he believes are important. the measures to deal with high-capacity magazine clips and close loopholes in our background checks and system. lou: the president is scheduled tomorrow to address the media late in the morning. he is expected to reveal the unilateral gun control actions proposed by vice president biden. his executive orders reportedly will include cracking down on those who lie on their background checks, and tougher penalties for gun trafficking, sharing a gun database information at the state and federal level, and better mental health reporting. if you think the president is not serious, consider that. he is about to give his second press briefing of the week. something he didn't do in the fiscal cliff debate, nor in the last debt ceiling by. how speaker john boehner and mitch mcconnell, for their part, conspicuously avoiding news cameras and silent at the administration's assault on the second amendment as it escalates. a backlash appears to be building in certain parts of the country. one republican congress gentleman requesting act unilaterally. and the state of texas introducing a measure that would make federal officials subject to prosecution. tonight we have the "a-team" to discuss the issue. in the sandy hook elementary school massacre rolling rock school safety and the idea of armed guards in schools across the country. one school district is not waiting for the president to act. karl cameron has the report. reporter: reporter: this steel town now has armed troopers guarding their public-school. >> the first reaction is to keep the kids at school say. >> whether we are right or wrong, we will do whatever it takes to protect the children. >> there is concern that any weapon in schools can create new risks. in july the more evidence that we have, the better. for 99% of public schools require visitors to sign it. 92% walk or monitor doors according to the study by the national center for education systems. metal detectors are commonplace and have been here at butler for years as well. 30% are dissatisfied with current gun laws, a 15-point jump year ago. if you research poll says 51% think it is more important to control gun ownership, 45% it's more important to protect gun rights. maryland governor martin o'malley wants to add fingerprinting and background checks. and mandatory gun safety courses for gun purchasers. >> will do everything we can to protect them from the horrors of gun violence. reporter: in recent weeks barbara boxer, the california senator and noted liberal gun-control advocate has embraced the idea of armed security in schools and even suggested to vice president joe biden that i be part of his proposals. lou: the number of schools in this country that had been employed protectors for our children. >> it is particularly interesting that the national rifle association says it is not at all uncommon placed. lou: karl cameron come in chief political correspondent. joining us now is lis wiehl and jean zimmerman. much of the northeastern, if you will political note media elite have literally tried to suppress or you -- i'm going to turn to you, robert. reporter: up to 19 executive orders that we will be getting from the president. the president hasn't exacted these yet, but if the president saying that i want to up the ante on guns, and the penalties go to the legislative branch. lou: what about the agreement of the firearms of whatever sort. >> you have been very vigilant of monitoring the use of executive orders, no matter who has been in office, no matter which party has been in office. >> you always have to be scrutinizing executive positions. but the president, what we have seen so far in the report, these are administrative steps focusing on more aggressive enforcement of procedures, sharing of intelligence, sharing information of mental health issues or about qualifications and background checks. lou: this is one of the things that you raised earlier. the need to really highlight, and that is that in each of the most recent instances, the tragedy at sandy hook, aurora, colorado, the list goes on. and since it was a mentally ill, deranged young man. who was the perpetrator of these heinous acts. >> that is what president obama could do in a executive order. he could have more research into that. but i am very concerned. the slippery slope argument. the president coming out and saying i'm going to issue 19 executive orders and bypass congress. not just for this administration, but for any administration. lou: i think that we need to point out that jay carney today, seem seem to indicate, not only -- if i may, qualified on this basis, the president recognizes that with any substantive move, he will have to work absolutely with the congress. >> it was very clear of what we are hearing about executive orders. i think what we have to keep our focus on is the urgency of congress to take steps of buying guns through gun shows so they can avoid it. those that are abusive of the system and clearly dangerous enough one of the political concerns for me though, if the president comes out and his executive orders are done, does the administration sit back and say, okay, we have done everything we can do, and we are working with congress? >> i cannot read the motivation on the part of the political portion. you talked about gun shows. we are hearing a chorus of cries of background checks. 1% of crimes are committed by guns purchased a gun show. more murders are committed with a person with a club or hammer than are killed by guns. and this is part of the campaign that has surrounded the discussion to the degree that there has been a discussion. because republicans have been, as i said at the outset, no is your reaction to the president. so i think it's important to get the facts in the foreground of the discussion. certainly to not unilaterally. >> it is really not whether people die because of a hammer than they do because of an assault weapon or a magazine of 10 or 20 bullets. the bottom line is there is no rational for a homeowner to have a magazine clip with 10 or 15 bullets in. lou: there is a few of you imagine the person in the middle of the night requires 10 rounds to fend off an intruder. not everyone is annie oakley or davy crockett. you have to be a little bit more constrained by what is necessary at the moment in which you do need a weapon. by the way, and we also have to have acknowledgment from the left, from the democratic party that these guns in this precious second amendment that this shows the rights to bear arms is also designed to make certain that the citizenry is never so we prefer the government that they cemented tierney. i'm sure you would acknowledge that as well. >> the second amendment is not absolute. you cannot have provisions of issues of how you manage. >> before we go drifting along with judge school yet and one of his journeys, let's return to what i asked you. you do a knowledge, do you not, that one of the reasons for the right to bear arms is to resist the temptation of government to ever be too radical? >> i find that absurd. i don't think our enemy is indefinite. lou: did i say that the enemy was our government? did i not say that part of the second amendment -- the reason it exists is to prevent government from ever being tempted to establish tyranny over our citizens? >> that's what he said. >> that is one of the reasons you're going to see energetic vigilance and perhaps opposition to the efforts of this white house. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. >> thanks. lou: much more had on the gun-control plans coming up later with the "a-team." stay with us. president obama is adamant. of course he is adamant. he says he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling. all sorts of politicos and savants are talking about a government shutdown. in tonight's "chalk talk", we tell you the truth. and we will call him some trouble waters. plus new warnings about a downgrade of the u.s. debt. a familiar tune with the voice of doom. will the markets take them seriously this time citigroup's global head joins us with the answer the boys use capital one venture miles for their annual football trip. that's double miles you can actually use. tragically, their ddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. but with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the scoreboard doesn't lie. what's in your wallet? hut! i have me on my fantasy team. at legalzoom, we've created a better place to handle your legal needs. maybe you have questions about incorporating a business you'd like to start. or questions about protecting your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like to find the right attorney to help guide you along, answer any questions and offer advice. with an "a" rating from the better business bureau legalzoom helps you get personalized and affordable legal protection. in most states, a legal plan attorney is available with every personalized document to answer any questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. lou: let's take a quick look at what is happening to the markets and the economy. fitch is warning of a possible u.s. downgrade the debt ceiling talks drag on. citigroup had will join us here in just moments. retail stocks rolling up better than expected holiday sales season. the dow jones industrials up 27 points on the day. the s&p managed a point gain but still reaching another five-year high. the nasdaq is down six, that is only slightly from yesterday. the commerce department reported retail sales rose a half precent in december, november sales also revised higher. apple is "the biggest loser" in the s&p 500 today, down more than 3% again. it's on yesterday's losses also reports of weak demand and apple shares closing today just under $486. apple stock with $702 is back on the 19th of september. crude oil down 86, just over $93 per barrel. gold of working for $5. going above $1683. the 10 year treasury down 1.3% in feel. margins beginning on a positive note this year. the s&p all 3% higher year-to-date. the economy showing signs of surprising strength and stability. where there was once weakness. joining us now for the remainder of what is the eager that is beginning well is nathan sheets, global head for citigroup. it's good to have you here. >> are we seeing a real recovery table here? give us your sense of it. >> i think we see a strength in the housing sector and households are making some progress, that is good as well. i think that the real element with sustaining recovery will be more confident in the business sector. and i think that the businesses continue to wait for a little bit more progress out of washington. lou: yes, he saves all continud on washington, what a lousy piece of geography, right? >> the idea that the fiscal cliff has been resolved best it can be is we have another month and a half to go on the deferred sequestration and but budget cuts and tax hikes that have already been put in place. are these guys making more sense than usual? >> i think the resolution of the fiscal cliff us a little bit further toward debt sustainability. going back to 2011, we needed about $4 trillion over a ten-year period 10 year period of time. we are about halfway there with the agreements that have been put in place so far. the question is are we going to go further or not. >> to these guys scare you? >> they make me uncomfortable. the economy needs certainty and 30 end fiscal policy and it seems like we are still hearing a lot of noise if we are watching lot of nothing as usual in washington dc. i'm also hearing a lot of nothing from the businesses here, to be very candid about it. we are hearing a lot of whining and moaning and excitement from the business sector about innovation and new markets and new strategies. but there is a lot of potential besides cost cutting, port. >> the earnings in the corporate sector very high right now. we are seeing earnings decelerates him, and that is likely going to be continued if we don't get to a place where the firms feel more comfortable investing in the is the missing link. lou: this is where i say amen, brother. it is supposed to be the birthright of americans, productive roles. we expect this year's first gdp growth? >> something as far as 2% in the first half of the year. we hope it will get there and close to 3%. very much holding my breath and we will see what the airframes. lou: thank you for joining us. breaking news from capitol hill, the house of representatives has just approved a $50.7 billion package for the victims of hurricane sandy. conservatives have wanted to reduce that measure and offset part of the cost through spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. those efforts were rebuffed in tonight's vote clearing the way for the senate to approve the legislation of when it returns from recess next week. the house approving and 51 billion-dollar provision of hurricane sandy victims. up next, scare tactics trying to back republicans into going along with the debt ceiling increase. we will take up the impact in tonight's "chalk talk." and the administration looking to enact sweeping immigration reforms in a mass of new laws. we will talk to our guest coming up next. >> this year 3000 people officemax has exactly the ink... your business needs... at prices that keep you...out of the red. this week get a bonus $15 itunes gift card with any qualifying $75 ink purchase. find thousands of big deals now... at officemax. that your mouth is under attack, from fd particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. >> america cannot afford another debate with this congress about whether they should pay the bells they have wracked up. if congressional republicans refuse to pay america's bills on time, social security checks and velveterans benefits checks wile delayed. lou: social security and veteran's benefits? that is the president resorta to spare tactics, trying to get the republicans to back down on the debt ceiling debate. you may have noticed that sounded familiar to you? he used same tactics and same language in 2011. nothing original at all. and not raising the debt ceiling, i want you to know in my judgment is not a reasonable outcome, but neither is the president's scary nonsense, i find that this be appalling on his part. or anyone who would resort to that kind of scare tactics for those in our society who should never be frightened by our nation's leaders, the issue of who is what gets paid in a debt ceiling impasse, a shut town of government, would be entirely up to the president of the united states period. if congress does fail to lift the debt ceiling by late february, the treasury department has to cover about 450 billion-dollars. in obligations. about 450 billion. revenue at that point, $2 77 billion. essentially the government will be able to cover about 60% of its bill. 60% of its bills, treasury would make the interest payments on the debt that could is about 40 billion. okay? just for debt, we could still pay up social security benefits, they account for about 61 billion-dollars. and we could still pay veterans and our military, that would cost $17 billion for the military and for veterans. that is still only $118 billion of that $2 17. $118 billion. i want to ask you. why would anyone not be appalled by a president saying what he just did? implying there would not be adequate money to take care of social security obligations during that period. imply its would not be up to him to make a decision, which would prevent our social security recipients from worrying about such a thing. these -- this is not the stuff of which this president wants to be remembered. this president liked to peg republicans as irresponsible for resisting an increase of debt ceiling but would that not label apply on any administration that would openly violate the law that requires the president to submit a budget to congress by the first monday of every february? we know the white house will miss the deadline this year. it acknowledged such. as it has missed its deadline for three of the past four years, we can only hope americans take notice. a note of caution mr. president, a new gallup poll shows that americans are paying attention, in a remarkable way. with some detail and some very specific interest. in fact, when asked to name of most important problem facing the united states in most present gallup poll, let's look at this. this is important as the president prepares to speak to the nation tomorrow on one issue. 21% say that most important problem facings country was the economy. 21%. 20% said the deficit. 20%. 18% said dissatisfaction with the government overall. that number seemed low to me by the way. 16% said the greatest problem is unemployment that number colates closely to those unemployed, including those who have given up looking for work. 5% said just the lack of money is the number one problem. as they see it by the way, 4%, 4%, said gun control. this is where you are mr. president. this is where you are. and it appears president obama is being reckless with at 4r50e69 two oat leastthose issue remain out of work. two press briefings on gun control, well, let's see what happens. >> the gun control debate, the empireious president set to rule. >> liberal mainstream media outraged about a new nra shooting app, we'll show you the game they should really be worried about. we wonder why are they ignoring it? is the obama administration now secretly planning amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. will republicans go along with the plan? immigration attorney, cardenas will join us next. i would ever quit.hink [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history heart or blood vsel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. with chantix and with the support system it worked. it worked for me. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. lou: my next guest said that the fact that president obama is seeking a an ambitious overhaulf the immigration system is a great step. but first the borders must be secured. it is great to see you my friend, welcome back. lou: let's start with this massive bill, that at least it is described as such, that would provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. first with the consist. do you think that is theappropiate way to proceed given the failures and frustration of the past 6 years at part of those who tried to avoid incrementallism and seek a whole loaf rather than a portion there of. >> the portions need to be there, the end goal is to make certain that immigration works for america first. and for the system we need in our economy to have visas for individuals who want to come and work individually, and the most secure borders we can have. nobody should be against that. once we get those steps achieved then we should look at how we fix the problems we do have, so we do not end up this this mess again. lou: the government accountability office showing they believe they are under counting the number of people entering this country illegalling looker they being, homeland security, by almost 40%. 38% under counting. that is extraordinary, they -- on to say, they really think there are great problems with the estimates on the part of nearly all of the agents they do not think they are close reality. >> if we had a visa system that worked for those who want to work here legally, we could focus on those that want to do damage. which is really where department of homeland security should focus, we saw in the gao study was a income healtly the versiot only focussed on the southwest border, it needs to be a comprehensive study of our coastlines, and those that over stay their visas. lou: and illegal immigrants, estimated 40% here, as a result of entering through the ports and airports. over staying their visas. going to the idea that we're going to see this battle joined. i have gone through the list with gallup, talking about problem that face the nation, this president those en one of the lowest priorities -- chose en one of the lowest priorities for american people to put his great, effort into, that is gun control here, is talking about immigration reform, and gun control, he is taking on the issues that frankly are not -- not at the top of the list for most americans. how doe you raisingallize that, we need to resolve the issue, but how do we eplane hi explains of priority. >> well, i don't think they should mess with the second amendment, when they put it out there immigration reform should be done in a way it achieves an american purpose, i feel, and i think that american people feel that problem has persisted for decades. and it needs to be addressed in a rational hume -- humane approach, the president is talking with leaders to both parties, and i really look forward to seeing legislation introduced. it needs to be done in a bipartisan fashion. lou: do you think that the -- >> one party cannot take all of the responsibility or the blame. lou: are the republicans do you believe, ready to press ahead and a. >> it should be a pathway to legal status. i am not objecting to provisions already in place, but let's be frank, republicans are the ones that have led on this issue through decade, last time comprehensive eu7 immigration rm passed it of during republican leadership, of it bipartisan, it wassing should that did get more democratic votes, but failed during leadership of democrats in 2007, i believe, you can't blame one sydor the other, you have to come together, that is what the american people top see. i hope that is where the president is headed. lou: always good to talk with you. >> you got it, thank you, lou. lou: coming up tomorrow, appellate attorney, peter johnson, talking about second amendment and far more. and attorney general greg abbott will be here. and jed. next, a new pro nra video game. that is right, you will never guess what the national libya media is focused on. the a-team will take them a pa part. are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. lou: liberal plain stream media blasting nra for target shootig it comes a database of state gun laws, cnm, and nbc covering criticism surrending the nra's game release as an app. for some reason those organizations chose to ignore outrage over a new on-line video game in which players are actually they get points for murdering the president of the nra, and creator also developing a simulation of sandy hook shooting, that is not horrifying enough for liberal mainstream media, at least cnn, and nbc. >> walmart, the initiative to result in 100,000 hires in in the next 5 years. >> way to go walmart, i have to say, hiring 100,000 veterans, god bless. >> you up next, president, set to unveil his gun control pro % onal tomorrow morning, -- proposal tomorrow morning, we can hardly wait, how about you. 19 executive orders, the a-team taking up the emperious president and so much more, join us next. lou: joining me now the a-team. good to have you all here. well, let me just start if i may, we have breaking news. our congressional correspondent, has justin formed us according to two democratic aides there are three point component points to be discussed by president, universal background checks for those seeking to buy firearms. that also there will be a limitation on magazines, no more than 10 rounds. and there will be a initiative to ban assault weapons again. those three components according to our mike emanual. i want to start with you robert. what do you think? >> i think this is a strong broad camp hencive approach, and also went mainstream thinking of america people according to polling of nra members, went their mainstream thinking, there has to be a more aggressive background check, the idea there could be loopholes that people can buy guns in gun shows and avoid background check is unacceptable. >> and -- banning assault weapons is important. >> curtis? >> miami, new york, chicago, where there is should horrific crime where the fiercest gun control laws, and by the way you mention walmart, they will not have guns left to sell, at the rate that people are buying guns. >> we should continue to sell assault weapons? >> you are helping gun industry sell more guns than they sold before, more magazines or more ammunition. >> beside vaudeville routine -- -- >> your position? >> in new york crime has dropped to an all-time low. >> are you saying we should sell assault weapons. >> we should, have you been selling them, there are a million in new york alone. >> it should continue? >> why not? >> you talk with major -- >> handguns commit more murders in america. >> we should allow -- >> may i interjec, sherri? but two facts, one. 49% of murders are committed by handguns, not assault rifle thees, and we're talking about most 2% of murders are by rifles. 300 i believe the number was 326 murders by rifles. not assault rifles but rifles that would be within that context. more people murdered with a hammers and clubs than rifles, now sherri, your view? >> the president knows the same thing you just stated, lou, that is why tomorrow he is doing a big pr effort, surrounding himself with a lot of children, of course, he will be protected by men with guns, but he does not' anyone else to be protected. this is why he does this smithklinsmarmyein my view, usia shield, if one teacher or principal has a gun that saves children, in a school like sandy hook, then the second amendment is worth it, and effort to stop and infringe on my second amendments. and the present will give you emotional talking point but you have armed grown ups that know how to use the gun that know how to protect the children, and remember principal and those teachers ran toward the gunman, had one had a gun more children could have been saved. not the president standing with children claiming that gun control will safe their lives it has not worked this is despicable what he is doing. lou: we'll be back, and continue yelling i'm sure, they will speak with a passion that is commensurate on the issue, we'll be right back with the a-team. stay with us. what are you doing? nothing. are u stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. lou: with all talk about gun control. it is easy to forget there is a debt ceiling battle upon us, presidentments to resolve a good measure of the gun control issue with executive order fee. >> usurp taxes are good, i sign executive orders this is my honorable decree from his royal highness, barack obama, we got rid of kings years ago, he has allege late testify work with, -- legislative to work with, not to gifforders. lou: he said it is easier to work without them, he said any deal too raise federal budget, has to include new tax revenues. not only do you have to raise the debt ceiling but you -- the republicans have to agree raise taxes. who house th has the gun to
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 8:00pm EST
orth in america. i'm looking forward to the debate. we need to bring business principles back to washington, d.c. so i yield back the balance of my time and may god bless america. thank you. mr. messer: thank you. i would next like to recognize my good friend, the distinguished the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you for bringing me to the floor today. it is a privilege and honor to be a member of the house of representatives, the people's house. we have all been sent here to serve the people and i look forward to representing the hard-working people of michigan. mr. bentivolio: members of the first congress were summoned to uphold and defend the constitution. because of the constitution, america became a shining symbol of freedom a prosperity to the world. today, we must ensure that america retains that lust ter. everyone arrives here from different walks of life. some are lawyers, some are business leaders and yes, well, at least one of us is a reindear rancher. i recognize we have different viewpoints and i have joined congress during a contentious time. i do think, however, there is one thing on which we should all agree, the job of a member of congress is to protect the rights of the people, not take them away. the national debt is approaching $17 trillion. the decisions we make in this chamber, not only affect us today, they resonate throughout future generations. the massive national debt we are accruing will leave to our children a weaker nation than the one we inherited from our parents. those yet to be born do not have a voice today. they don't have representation. but we must remember what we do here resonates for generations to come. our moment to preserve our great nation has arrived. our country is at a crossroads. we must stand together and get over our disagreements. we must strive valiantly and dare greatly, applying the principles that made our country so exceptional to solve the problems that the people of this great nation sent us here to do. thank you. i yield back my time. mr. messer: thank you distinguished the gentleman from michigan. mr. speaker, i want to thank you for your time and help tonight and other distinguished member of the freshman class and hope we have opportunities to participate in these special orders as several have alluded to. our idea here is to be part of the public debate. every one of us in this room tonight, everybody watching has grown up in an america, no matter where you came from, if you worked hard and stayed focus in this great country, you would the opportunity to build a life for yourself. you would have the opportunity to live the american freedom. in my life, as i travel through indiana and talk to people across this country, people are doubting whether that will be true. whether the next generation of young people will have the same kind of opportunities that we all had growing up. it is not an exaggeration to say the upcoming debate is about the question about what are we willing to do some save our country and does washington have enough? how much more must they take from the hard-working americans, tax paying americans who are trying to put their life together every day. i and my colleagues who spoke earlier today believe that washington has enough. we don't need to give her more. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker. it's good -- it is very, very good that the new 113th congress acted today to reach out in sympathy, compassion and with real support to the people who were so severely impacted by superstorm sandy. one of our colleagues just a moment ago spoke about this nation being at a crossroads, and indeed, we crossed paths many, many times and there are many different crossroads. the people of pennsylvania, new jersey, new york, connecticut and other parts of this great nation here on the east coast, came to a crossroads. that crossroad was 97 days ago when superstorm sandy came ashore and whacked and destroyed and indeed, killed americans. we stood tall and said we are one nation, we are one nation and when one of us is harmed, we'll stand with that person. when one's state is harmed, we'll stand with that state, and we will come together, just as my colleagues said a moment ago, we will come together, to provide what is needed to rebuild, to sustain, to provide for those who have been harmed, can carry on. there's a lesson here for all of us. and tonight, my democratic colleagues and i, will talk about the lesson that superstorm sandy brought to this nation. certainly one of those lessons has been fulfilled today. as a great nation, we will provide what is needed for the rebuilding, for the immediate needs, even though it's 97 days late. we will provide. because we are a compassionate nation. there is also another lesson here, and that lesson is for this entire nation to get ahead of the next disaster. it will come. and it will be another storm up the east coast, or into the gulf. it will be an earthquake in my state of california, or a flood, or a fire. but there will be yet another natural disaster of one sort or another, perhaps manmade, perhaps mother nature. what we must do as a nature is to get ahead of that, to prepare ourselves not only with emergency responses, but more and just as important, to prepare the infrastructure to protect the lives and the property of the citizens of this nation. that's the second lesson of superstorm sandy. build the infrastructure to prepare for the next flood, the next hurricane, the next onslaught of mother nature. in so doing, we not only reduce the cost of that next storm, that next flood, but we also save the lives of americans. and we put people to work right now. this nation is not yet fully recovered from the recession of 2008. this nation has not yet fully brought americans back to work, and we can do so taking the lesson of this day's action here on the floor of the house of representatives. where we -- at least most of us -- voted to build for the future, voted to put in place those infrastructure improvements, not for yesterday, not to rebuild just what was there that was destroyed, but rather to build for the future onslaught of a storm coming into new jersey, new york, connecticut, or other parts of this nation. to be prepared. the boy could you tell motto, be prepared. -- the boy scout motto, be prepared. an ounce of prevention is an ounce of cure. and today, we want to talk about infrastructure investment, the kind of things that was done here on the floor, some $33 billion going not only for immediate relief, but to build the infrastructure necessary to protect and prepare for the next storm. joining me today in this discussion, at least at the outset, is my colleague from new york, paul tonko. we often meet here on the floor. we sometimes call this the east coast-west coast show. i'm from california. representative tonko is from new york. you were there not only for this storm but the previous and that was less than 18 months ago. let's talk about these things, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together on the floor where i think it's important to pay attention to the needs out there as they relate to the damages that were brought upon certain areas of the country by mother nature. yes, there has been a lot of focus on this superstorm sandy that really had its presence felt just to the south of my given congressional district. however, there was some damages to the northern reaches of upstate new york, the more northern sections, as we traveled north of the metro area. but suffice it to say, the need here for assistance, by not only new york, but new jersey and connecticut, where the proper of new york, the metro area, new york city, long island, were impacted severely. the fringe elements in my area, not as much. but certainly new jersey and connecticut were hard hit. but just over a year before that storm, you are absolutely right. we were impacted by irene and lee. a double dose of damage that wrelly impacted my give -- really impacted my congressional district. it looked like a war-torn area as was the case here with superstorm sandy. and this nation whenever impacted by natural or manmade disasters found a response by congress that whoever that person might be at the the time working with congress, expedited the assistance, wanted to get the aid there with a high degree of urgency. what we saw here was uncalled delays as people languished. we have to look at the human element, the human costs of 88 americans that were impacted, life lost because of this tremendous devastation, the impact that befell so many communities with infrastructure being damaged severely, if not destroyed totally. it was also about the impact on the business community, the loss to commerce and certainly property damage that people are going to have to respond to over a long course of comeback that i have witnessed in my district with that storm as you indicated, being more than a year ago. it is important for us as a nation to be responsive and be responsible. that has always been the measure coming forth from this nation, understanding that with sensitivity, what needed to be done in getting aid to people. that's what it's all about. and so, today, when finally a vote was taken from 70 days after superstorm sandy hit, 70-plus days after the storm hit, finally we get a response, when so much pain and anguish was allowed to continue unnecessaryly so. the infrastructure fractures in this country, storms aside, needs to be addressed. the american society of civil engineers have created many of our bridges into a declassification, a poor grade, deficiencies that are out there, brought to our attention. so not only doll we need to respond to these tragedies and respond to our given infrastructure, but i think what happens here is an opportunity to come forward about job creation, providing for the trades and skills, trades people to be put into work. that is so important for our economy. so important for our public safety. so important for emergency response as we witnessed here in the northeast of the country. and so, while the fight was long and at times, unnecessary, at least the vote was taken today and we move forward. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. tonko. the bill now is out of this house. it's already in the senate. we expect the senate to pass it probably tomorrow or the next day. certainly before the inaugural on monday and then the president will sign it shortly thereafter. bringing that kind of relief. you mentioned the jobs issue and people need to go to work. when we have these natural disasters and we come forward with the kind of support that we have seen today and will soon be available for new jersey, new york, connecticut and the surrounding areas, people go back to work. those people that have received immediate fema support for housing, for clothing, for food, that money is immediately spent into the economy. on the infrastructure side, it's crucial when the subways of lower manhattan flooded, the world's financial institution took a whack, because it was shut down for several days. people couldn't get to work. so the entire world's economy slowed down costing of billions of dollars beyond just the damage. now, part of the bill that was passed today and the infrastructure improvements are the heart to prepare manhattan and the surrounding areas, the beach communities and others, for the next storm, to put up the seawalls. what does that mean? the ounce of prevention and pound of cure has taken place, but it also means people are going to go to work. let me refer to this chart, this is from mark zandy, former economic adviser to john mccain. this is generally agreed to by most economists, for every dollar invested in infrastructure, you get $1.57 back into the american economy. so you're not just putting a dollar in, you are getting the american economy going, but putting people to work. buy food, pay taxes, support their families, and build for tomorrow's disaster. putting in place the infrastructure that is hardened, that is protected, eliminating the potential in this specific case of flooding of the subway systems in new york city. i know that you talked about doing this in your area for the storm. you may want to pick that back and i want to come back and talk by my own district in california. . mr. tonko: people have said that there is a need for government, they want effective government, efficient government. well, i think when we look at some of the data that are collected, representative garamendi, it is important for us to acknowledge that as we rebuild in our areas that have been damaged by mother nature, you don't just replace, you need to improve upon the situation. for instance, if there are data that are telling us that more and more water volume is expected in certain watershed areas, as in my district, it would be foolish to spend tax dollars, the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and simply replace an infrastructure, a bridge, at the same height, at the same span if in fact we know that the water and the force of that water is growing with time. and so these are the ways to, i think, incorporate the soundness of academics and analyses that go into how we respond to this. and if much of it is driven by climate change, global warming, some of the impacts of mother nature that are causing these disruptive scenarios, then ought we not look at sound policy that then stretches our thinking and really puts a laser sharp focus onto these situations? so this is a call for a big picture view. it's a call for effective replacement and repair so that we're responding to data that are collected, that speak to the demographics that we should expect to have happen as we go forward. and as we rebuild, you know, making certain that there are those opportunities for waterfront communities to embrace their sense of geography. i represent a district that is not only a donor area to natural resources, but also historic resources in those waterways. and people want to have waterfront opportunities. they want to rebuild their communities so as to utilize these natural resources as a marketing agent to draw people to the area. well, we can tame the mother nature impact in a way that allows us to go forward with this remarketing strategy, that allows us to utilize our sense of location, our place destination, and do it in a way that is possible because of preventative measures, because of retrofitting, that can take hold, and it's a way to utilize the engineering services out there, civil engineering, architectural opportunities, to build communities and build them in a way that allow us to have that sense of place, only deepen rather than denied because we've walked away from what might have been damaged from mother nature and have abandoned those opportunities. mr. garamendi: you're speaking of something that is very close, i know, to your heart. i heard you speak on this issue some months ago. about some of the historic buildings that date back to the prerevolutionary war era in -- pre-revolutionary war era in new york. and it's interesting to note that in this sandy resolution that passed the house today, there are numerous reforms, improvements on the way in which the federal emergency management system works so that the historic resources can be rebuilt and maintained so that that sense of history, that sense of our past and who we are as americans is going to be there for future generations. some of the old rules and regulations made it vertly impossible to do that -- vertly impossible to do that -- virtualy impossible to do that. there's also other reforms that allow the projects, homes and businesses to be rebuilt in a way that protects them from the future storms and the increased storms that you so aptly described. let me just take this home to my district. i represent the central valley of california. the great sacramento valley. 200 miles of it. literally from the beginning of san francisco bay, 200 miles up the sacramento river. and probably, i haven't been able to count all the levees in my district, but i probably have well over 1,500 miles of levees that protect large cities, medium-sized cities, farms and other critical assets and infrastructure in the state of california. for example, the intercontinental rail system. both north and south. intercontinental highway systems. universities. international airports. these critical assets are at risk of flooding. the army corps of engineers, taking a look at the levees in one part of my district, a basin which is part of the city of sacramento, judges those levees to have a one in 30 chance of failure so that over a 30-year period of time it's anticipated there will be a catastrophic failure of those levees. 100,000 lives just in that part of sacramento at immediate risk because those flood waters, should those levees fail, it would make -- it would be a repeat of what happened in new orleans only the water is deeper. and the flood waters would rush in at least as fast, if not faster. a monumental disaster, international airport gone, highways gone and on and on. we need to get ahead of that. we need to build that infrastructure, those levees, to protect those assets. a penny of prevention, a pound of savings. so these are the kind of things that we can do and there are ways we can do this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving lives and property. this is how we should be acting. rebuilding after a storm to a higher standard, building before the storm to protect our people. the people that we represent. these are critical issues. these are infrastructure projects. and we need to get on top of this and push these projects forward. yes, it will cost money. but not nearly as much as the cost of a levee failure because we failed to act in time. mr. tonko: you know, when you speak, representative garamendi, about the cost of these repairs or improvements, we're talking about a design team, we're talking about a construction team, we're talking about a maintenance team. and all of that translates into jobs. so these efforts are, yes, an expenditure, but it's putting people to work and addressing not only public safety but commerce. again, my home county, which is split by an historic river was the scene of devastation, just over 25 years ago. where new york city state's throughway bridge collapsed because of the flooding that was occurring beneath that bridge. a creek that you could walk across, walk through, in the middle of summer was equal to, in c.f.s., the cubic feet per second flow, of niagara falls. and we lost 10 lives in that incident. and also saw the impact locally to commerce. it just disrupted the flow of activity to ship goods to whatever section of our area. it totally disrupted that situation. so that is just a micros could much of impact of what happened -- microcosm of the impact of what happened. but you're very right. of the levees that may be at risk, that could be a challenge to public safety, the poor ratings of our many, many bridges across this country, the need to begin aggressively, to address these situations, means that you can bend that cost curve, simply by moving projects forward. because the longer we go in time, the more expensive it will be and the more risky it becomes with these deficient bridges. and so programs like the american jobs act or build america bonds, all of these efforts are a progressive bit of policy that then takes us to a new realm of thinking. it a -- a commitment to the safety of the people of this great country, a commitment to commerce and the doable qualities of having infrastructure vastly improved, that enables us then to talk serious business about growing our nation's economy. so i think that, you know, the efforts here by the democratic caucus to bring to the attention of the full house the sort of positive thinking, the sort of planned opportunities that speak to the very nature of our infrastructure, and both of us represent states that rely heavily on well-developed and very well-maintained infrastructure, is indeed imperative. we need to move forward with a very strong, supportive statement to this nation about this nation's infrastructure. mr. garamendi: i'd like to move in just a moment to the issue of how we can actually help other parts of our economy grow as we build our infrastructure. but before i do, i was just thinking about the previous discussion from our republican colleagues, where they talked about the deficit and the deficit and we ought to cut -- we ought to eliminate government programs. certainly there are government programs that are neither efficient, effective or necessary. and those, yes, those should be cut. but when you start talking about infrastructure, this is something that we really must do. it was said that for an expenditure of some $15 billion , new york city could have protected its subway system and the shoreline from the devastation of two major storms. one that occurred a year ago and another one that occurred just 97 days or three months ago, superstorm sandy. so if we get ahead of these disasters and build the necessary protections, for example, in my district, if we build those levees, yes, it will cost money, but in one area it's about $1 billion. very expensive. no doubt about it. but if we do not protect, do not build those levees, the devastation will amount to several times that amount of money. that's precisely what happened in manhattan and in the new york city area. so, again, you spend that money up front, yes, you put people to work, yes, there may be an immediate issue of where and how we fund it, and that's a legitimate issue. but fail to do it and then the cost is horrendous. and, yes, if the state, the federal, the local government it's, individuals that are -- governments, individuals, that will all be an expense they have to endure. and superstorm sandy, the bill we saw today, is precisely on. that having said that, let's talk about the broader subject. you talked about build america bonds a minute ago. build america bonds were part of the stimulus program, a now almost 4 years old. that program created a new mechanism to assist local governments in providing the funding to build infrastructure. very, very successful in putting people back to work. we could extend that. in doing so we will put people back to work, we will build the infrastructure, whether that's highs or -- highways or pridges -- bridges or whatever. when we do that, one of our favorite subjects, is this, we can make it in america. we use our taxpayer money to make and to spend that money on american-made products. so the steel in the bridges, the concrete, the other design elements are american jobs and as we do that we rebuild the american manufacturing base. you've talked about this extensively. you go back in history, but go for it. . mr. tonko: the manufacturing element in our society is strong. it still is, you know, very much a bit of statistical evidence that we rank high in the international economy with manufacturing jobs. but there was a huge loss in the decades before this administration. 4.6 million jobs lost in that manufacturing element. well, in order for us to stop that bleeding, it's important, i believe, to promote advanced manufacturing, retrofitting our manufacturing sectors to be cutting edge and doing it smarter, not necessarily cheaper, allowing us to maintain that worldly status in manufacturing. and it also, as we talk about infrastructure, you know beyond the bonds effort and the american jobs act, an infrastructure bank bill, that would allow us to leverage public and private funds and expand the opportunities to invest in our infrastructure, which takes us beyond the roads and bridges and levees that we talked about and waterfront opportunities and dam repair, but also brings us into the infrastructure for telecommunications and for electric utilities, so that we then are cutting-edge. we can provide for an upgrade, if you will, in the grid system. we saw the collapse in 2003 when branches were rubbing on power lines in ohio and put out the electricity in new york city. if there is a gaping situation that would have those looking at us for a weakness, it was there, that this grid system was so weak, designed for a monopoly setting and now being utilize to not only to reach into regions within states but nation to nation, canada. so we need to vastly improve that sense of weakness in our system and allow us to speak to the needs of manufacturing, because many are energy-intensive operations and need to be energy efficient so utilizing energy and build into the equation and also innovation, so doing things in a smarter fashion, and able to compete at the international level for jobs, because as we land those contracts with improved operations, that means more american jobs. and that approach, that cutting-edge thinking that enables us to maintain that sense of productivity and our intellectual capacity as a nation and takes the research that we should invest into and allows us to translate that research into jobs. so there are these dynamics of change and reform that can be brought into the discussions here as we go forward, and that will speak, i think, to the vitality, the economic vitality of this nation and the growth of jobs that i think are significant, that are long-lasting and bring us into a sophisticated thinking, which this american society is very capable of doing. mr. garamendi: last year, you and i talked in the last congress, which was last year, you and i talked about this make it in america, this manufacturing, we spent a lot of time talking about it. i had introduced legislation that would require that our tax money, at least 85% of it be spent on american-made products and equipment. let's take the superstorm sandy situation. we know that, for example, amtrak is receiving i think a little over 150 million to repair its tracks that were damaged by superstorm sandy. those are jobs, men and women will be working. but it's also steel, electrical wires, it's consultants and it will undoubtedly be various kinds of electrical systems that will be used by amtrak in rebuilding. similarly with regard to the subways in new york. now if we were able to write into the superstorm sandy legislation that 85% of that money that is being used came from american-made products, in other words, buy america, then that would not only put people back to work but stimulate the steel industry, the electrical industry and certainly the consultants, engineers and architects,. i'm going to re-introduce that legislation, too late for superstorm sandy. but for other legislation. we will have to rewrite a new transportation bill in this session. it there is a two-year bill that is in place and will expire at the end of the 113th congress. we should write into that transportation legislation where we will spend $60 billion a year to build transportation systems, a clause, like my bill that says, x taxpayer money, let's use that taxpayer money to buy american-made equipment and supplies, putting americans back to work and using that to rebuild the american manufacturing sector, along the lines you described, not with yesterday's technology but with advanced manufacturing. mr. tonko: the efforts that we have with so much of manufacturing with the incubator programs that en-- enable us to provide innovation in any of these assembly operations is key. i think it's key to our future. and i think of those situations in my district or even in my former district, where they worked with a local college that was very technically sophisticated, in this case r.p.i. in the greater capital region of new york worked with incubator program to develop these new opportunities within the plastics manufacturing that harry county utilized. it's worth mentioning on this floor, that that really brought about a new phase of activity for this company, by innovation, by re-adjusting its procedure, its process, they were able to compete more effectively that required, however, that they move their training, their work force, because it required a new skillset and as they did that, they reached out to hudson valley community college in the capital region of new york. that partnership created the human infrastructure. the incubator provided the innovation and they lived happily thereafter, because what they did is contract in the international competitive sweep stakes because they provided for innovation. the improvements that they made to their assembly operation enabled them to maintain that sense of competitiveness. it's that sort of thinking that takes us to a new level of job creation and job retention, compounding that or creating in the complement the buy american concept, then inspires reaching to those local firms. it can all be done in that format with the big picture sort of view that enables us to go forward and build sound policies, sound investment, with guarantees of much better outcomes for america's working families. the middle class has taken it on the chin. the working families have paid the price and time for us to be high geared in terms of making certain that the american worker comes first in our thinking. mr. garamendi: you couldn't be more correct. you used the word whole and total package. for years i have said, to have a growing economy and a just social environment, we needed to make as americans, critical investments. you hit three of those critical investments. you talked about research. absolutely critical investment in the future growth of the economy, and to solve today and tomorrow's problems. that's research, most of which, interestingly, is funded directly by the federal government, by the national institutes of health, darpa or one of the other federal agencies or indirectly through the research tax credit that we provide for businesses to engage in research. so research being one of the investments that lead to economic growth. you mentioned the second one, very interesting, and that's education. well-educated work force will be competitive across the world. that is the most critical investment. again, a role for the federal government, certainly a role for states and local governments, but a role for the american society that cannot be ignored. research education. and you drew it very, very correctly, and that is the manufacturing that comes from that. manufacturing matters, and how do you do? you need to be in front of it. and when you talk about the research and manufacturing technology, spot on. that is the third critical investment. the fourth one we talked about here, and that is infrastructure. these are four of the critical investments that we need to make as a society. some of that falls on individual companies encouraged by a research tax credit or encouraged by buy america in different ways, we encourage the tax policy. we did that. it was a democratic proposal. we did it three years ago and continued it and continued it in the recent fiscal cliff legislation where we provided 100% write-off for capital investment. that was from the democrats. you know, we care about business. so we said grow your business. we will provide you with 100% write-off in the first year of capital equipment you put in place, not deappreciation over seven, 14 years. but immediate. enormous for businesses. we want businesses to invest so they can make it in america. flr two more critical elements and i will go through them quickly, provide for the national defense wisely. i think the public knows by now we are spending $100 billion in afghanistan this year. $100 billion. we need to bring it back home. we need to end that war. thankfully, the president has set us off on a course where we will end american offensive action and move to supporting the afghan government in the spring of this year. mr. president, we are thankful you put that policy. let's bring the rest of it home. $100 billion. we need that money here. we need national defense, but we need to be wise how we spend that money. the fifth thing is this, we need to change. we need to be willing to change. thank you for bringing up the first three of those. but this is how we invest in the future, and these are policies that we need to put forward. they are the critical foundation for economic and social growth. mr. tonko: you speak to the innovation and you speak to research and that speaks to the d.n.a. our our nation which has been our pioneer spirit and is paid tribute on this floor when policies such as you just described is promoted. it is embracing that pioneer spirit knowing there are better ways, better avenues to travel, let's pursue that with the utmost bit of pioneer spirit. i represent a district that was the donor area for the erie canal. that provided for the westward movement and industrial revolution. it was america at her best, believing in herself, listening to the ideas of workers and moving forward, embracing that sort of pioneer spirit, building the research opportunities. i'm thinking of our electric grid system. think of what we can save in terms of energy supplies and in dollars if we move forward with the suremcon deducttive cable research project. mr. garamendi: this had to be six or seven years ago, 3m came in to talk about that issue. and they had researched and developed a new conductor that was 30% more efficient in passing those electrons down the line. think about what we could do in america to improve our energy capability by putting that in place and if that was made in america, we could not only improve the energy efficiency, we would increase the capacity of our electrical system by 30% simply by rewiring those conductors across this nation. that's what american manufacturing -- research, manufacturing, put it in the infrastructure, build our strong economy. great example. mr. tonko: you know, there are so many of us who are fans of education, higher education, investment and think of it, we cultivate all of this talent and draw forth the abilities of people through education and allow them to discover who they are. one of the gifts that i bear that can be utilized to strengthen society. well, we make that investment and then don't gain on it. we don't stretch those opportunities to the max. and it's so important, i believe, to continually think beyond the status quo. and when we're dealing with the energy arena, you know it's a line loss for one, that allows for huge savings and great opportunities for jobs to research that potential, but it's also issues like waste heat, which can be recaptured and make more efficient our energy system. so as we create and generate these energy supplies, if there's waste there and we can coptive ate or kaptur that waste and -- kaptur that waste, here yet is another opportunities. so it's endless. and for us to continue to do the same old kind of responses to everyday issues isn't the sort of challenging outcome that i think allows us to best function as an american society. so, you know, there are policies and there are tax reforms that encourage and inspire this sort of investment, research tax credits, opportunities within the renewable energy area, with production tax credits, all of this being promoted in advance, we need to expand upon those opportunities. because you are right, representative garamendi, it's an investment and requires dollars but those investments provide for lucrative dividends and many more dollars earned than those invested into the progress that we need to strike. . mr. garamendi: i think the tirme that we wrap this all into one piece. i'll take the first shot at it and then if you'd finish it up. i'm thinking of chicago. not my territory. it's a long way from california. beautiful city. very dynamic city. at the turn of the previous century, in the late 1800's, they had an architect, city architect, and he wrote think no small thought for it stirs not the heart of man. very interesting. we ought to add women to that equation now. but what he said is, when we rebuild this city, we need to build big. we need to think bold thoughts. we need to think about the greatness that could exist if we step forward. earlier in the previous hour we heard about the exact opposite. we heard about inward. thinking small. we are not going to reach out and fulfill the great potential of this nation. instead we're going to retreat. we're not going to allow government to be part of the greatness of our future but instead we're going to make it smaller. and less viable. and those five things that i talked about, education, that's a public investment. infrastructure is both public and private. the public side is critical. you look at manufacturing. manufacturing has always been private but it has always relied upon the public sector. and if we use our tax dollars to buy american-made products, we are causing the manufacturing sector to grow, to blossom, to innovate and to be even greater than it is today. and in developing the research, that's both a public and private, but it is largely a public sector investment. so we can deal with this by investing, by thinking boldly about what it is question do. and in doing so make certain that everything we invest in publicly is necessary, that it is run efficiently and that its courtum is effective. that -- outcome is effective. that it fulfills the goal for which it was designed. those should be our watch words. efficient. effective. necessary. and be bold. think no small thought. this is america. this is the world's greatest country. perhaps ever. and it was created by bold thinking, both public and private, working together, in a synergy that created this incredible nation. i'm excited. i'm excited here in the very early days of the 213th congress. i know we're going to have some big battles over debt limits and the like. but as we go through those fights, i want us to be bold. i want us to be big in our thinking. i want us to fulfill the great potential of this nation. and i know we can do it. i know we can do it. mr. tonko: well, representative garamendi, what i hear you saying is probably the definition of the american dream. and the american dream was designed and brought to us by the boldness of generation upon generation of immigrants who added to the peoplescape of this great nation. added to the native american population by stages of journeys that traveled to these shores. that we as a exillation of those journeys -- compilation of those journeys are a stronger people. the foundation upon which we stand and function and dream was developed by people who dared to dream nobly. dared to invest in their communities. in their people. and that i think is the challenge to us at this very moment in time. will history see us as a people that dreamt beyond the ordinary? or will we be those who were frightened by the thoughts of the challenges of our time? i think that our greatest days lie ahead of us. the american dream that burns boldly and nobly in our hearts speaks to us as that beacon of inspiration. move forward, invest in america's people, invest in ingenuity, innovation and intellectual capacity of this nation and walk, tread, tread boldly into the future. and know that you will leave that next generation with even stronger foundation that was granted us for our time in this nation. so, it's been an honor to join you this evening. mr. garamendi: it's always a pleasure to work with you, mr. tonko. with that, mr. speaker, we yield back our time and if you'd like a motion we can make it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman will withhold for one moment. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is a pleasure to be getting to know you better all the time, mr. speaker. and to be serving with you. and join here my friends talking about the economy and things that are going on. and so i wanted to address a few things, didn't come over here to plan to address what they had, but they were mentioning their hope for us bringing our troops home from afghanistan and having been there a few times, having talked to the former allies that this administration has thrown under the bus, that initially defeated the taliban for us with imbedded less than 500, possibly less than 300 imbedded special forces, special ops, and intelligence personnel, imbedded with the northern alliance, they defeated the taliban. in about three or four months. and then we added troops, we became occupiers and occupiers in that part of the world don't do well. someone reminded me what i already knew, that alexander the great defeated -- he conquered that area around afghanistan and i had to remind them that he died on his way out of the area. i don't consider that a great victory. but nonetheless we helped give the afghans a government, shah ryea -- shari'a law, making it difficult for jews and christians to reside in a country where they once had. under this administration's watch, like i said, we throw our allies under the bus and the taliban has come back almost as strong as ever. not quite. some of my northern alliance friends told me in one of our visits over there that on national television last year taliban leader that this administration released for humanitarian purposes from gitmo didn't seem to be having health problems and was on national television and was making clear that the u.s. would be withdrawing in the next year or two and that when they did, the taliban would be back in charge as they were before. and so it was time to come beg forgiveness from the taliban and ask for their protection under shari'a law. and that doesn't sound like we're going to be in a whole lot better position after all the losses of life. all of the service members who have laid down their lives in afghanistan, continue to do that as we speak, because the commander in chief has them there without any real mission, laying down their lives. and as one of our troops told me, i don't mindly aing down my life -- mind laying down my life for my country, but please don't waste it. they're not only laying down their lives for a wishy-washy government that can't figure out what it wants to do, that leave leaves our military without a clear mission, that allows the taliban to come back stronger than ever, supplied and funded in part from pakistan. they deserve better. they deserve much better. our commander in chief has been on television yesterday talking about the debt limit, debt ceiling. he's talked about our economy. i think it's worth noting that since 1923, when the president was required to furnish a budget in a time deadline given for furnishing that budget, 90 years, 90 years the president is required by law to furnish a budget. since 1923 those, those ensuing 90 years, there were apparently 11 times when presidents have been unable to get the budget to congress as required by law. and most of those -- well, some of those 11, there were very good reasons. but it's interesting to note in the last 90 years, out of the 11 times that the budget from the president has been late, four of those 11 have been under the obama administration. we're also informed that there is a chance once again, like there was a year and a half ago, that our credit rating of the u.s. could be lowered again. by another credit rating agency. some have tried to paint it as a different story, different picture, but for those of us who recall what happened, s&p made it clear that they didn't believe that the united states was serious about dealing with this dramatic spending problem, overspending problem. where we were spending $1.5 billion, $1.6 trillion, over $1 trillion more than the $2-plus trillion that we had coming in. and that if we didn't at least reduce the massive overspending annually by at least $400,000 -- $400 billion, rather, for 10 years, a total of $4 trillion over a 10-year period, then it would make it pretty clear that we were not serious about dealing with our debt. i know the obama administration went on the warpath after s&p, after the credit rating was lowered. personally i think it's the s&p's credit they did bha they said. we came in -- they did what they said. they came in with a debt ceiling bill. the debt ceiling bill that was agreed to with the administration had some sequestration in it with the supercommittee that some of us knew wasn't going to work, because the democrats made clear they didn't want a supercommittee to work because they wanted to be able to campaign and say, gee, cuts are coming to medicare because the republicans, you know, were trying to protect the rich friends and it worked very well. they didn't reach -- wouldn't reach an agreement. even after somebody like a republican senator had a proposal to raise new revenue, a couple of democrats were reported as saying this was going to be the breakthrough that allowed an agreement, after consulting with the president, harry reid apparently made clear he didn't want a deal. no deal. so there was no deal. and now the sequestrations are about to take place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 22 minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: so we had a debt ceiling bill that was undermined from the beginning, no deal was reached, sequestration, massive cuts to our national security, our national defense. would be inflicted. and massive cuts to medicare. our leaders responded to me that , gee, the democrats will never allow the cuts to medicare, the sequestration to medicare, $300 billion or so, they'll never allow that. that's why we know the supercommittee will reach an agreement. i advised them that that would not happen. there would be no agreement. of course they're willing to have $300 billion or so cut to medicare because obamacare cut $00 billion from medicare, from our seniors' care, without a single republican vote. so the only way the democrats could run a commercial last year, 2012 with any sincerity at all saying, gee, republicans are cutting medicare, would be if they prevent republicans from reaching agreement with the president, democrats, and then they'll run in in commercials in 2012 and blame republicans and say, see, they didn't reach an agreement. they wanted to cut seniors and help their rich friends. as some of us made clear, we weren't nearly as concerned at all about protecting anybody as we were future generations. how embarrassing that our generation is the first generation in american history that is said by -- that has said by our actions, we are not concerned with leaving our children and our grandchildren, future generations, a better country than we found. we're more concerned with lavishing money on the here and now that we can't pay for, that future generations will pay for, because we can't stop spending on ourselves. we had a vote today on relief for hurricane sandy. and we know something about the pain that comes from hurricanes. in my district in east texas, not only did we face consequences from hurricane katrina and the hundreds of thousands of people that came through in -- and many stayed in east texas and the onslaught of weather that hit east texas but it was immediately followed by hurricane rita that swept straight up through east texas, through my district. we know about suffering. and we saw how louisiana was helped so much more than east texas even though at the very time we were hit with hurricane rita, we were taking care of victims from hurricane katrina. we understand about that but there's a lot of misinformation about hurricane katrina. we did offset spending when we were -- when republicans were in the majority for hurricane ka tina. we actually then turned money back that was not spent. our heart goes out to the victims of hurricane sandy, especially those who understand what that kind of suffering is. i was all over my district, the democratic sheriff told his county once that they'll never forget midnight after hurricane rita hit, no power, there in the county, no power there at the sheriff's office. and there was a generator kicked on, the lights were flickering and after midnight, his u.s. congressman came walking but through his door and said, what can i do to help. -- do to help? had to cut down trees to get there to st. augustine and over to hemphill. it's tough dealing with the consequences of a hurricane. people are hurt. buildings, homes destroy wesmed understand that. we wanted to help the victims of hurricane sandy. but what we didn't want to do, and what we hoped there would be plenty of responsibility in dealing with, was pork that was placed in this bill for emergency pumps -- purposes. it just seems a bit immoral that you would take advantage of the suffering of people during a hurricane to get one last big plug of money. i mean, it's also pretty discouraging to see that there's money being captured, taking advantage of the victims of a hurricane, to enrich and engorge themselves. there ought to be a law against it. but there isn't. because this chamber, led by the senate down the hall, is still putting pork in these bills. to go to things that have nothing to do with the hurricane. and they're not offset. we have no problem on both sides of the aisle helping victims who can't help themselves. but we ought to pay for it now. former member of congress, one of the greatest heroes texas history has, named davy crockett, when he was a congressman a u.s. congressman from tennessee, stood before the house of representatives, right down the hall here, in the old house chamber, and explained what he was lectured to by a constituent. don't take my money, take your own money to help charitable causes. and not donnell we not do that, we take other people's money to help and they get all this pork added in order to get enough votes to pass it, and then it ought to be the biggest regret of this generation, we don't even pay for it. how in the world could this body fail to pass a bill that would pay for helping the victims of hurricane sandy? but we don't have the money to do it. so we're going to borrow over 40 cents, 40 cents to 50 cents of every dollar of money both for the pork and for the help for hurricane sandy because this body got sweet talked in to refusing to pay for helping this generation. we'll let our children and our children's children and maybe their children pay for this. we will load them up with debt because we will not pay our own way. we're too narcissistic, we're too self-indulgent, we are not going to pay our way and that kind of attitude is a tragedy. it brings countries down. what brings countries to the peak of their greatness is when generation of generation does not fail to honor the god that has blessed that country and they have a commitment that we were taught in boy scouts that you leave a place better than you found it and you leave better for those coming behind you. and it's embarrassing that this white house and this senate and this house are comfortable enough to leave a country massively more in debt than when this generation came to leadership. it's heartbreaking. one of the reasons we are not effectively dealing with this problem is because not enough people know the truth. they don't know the history of this country. apparently the president thinks it's perfectly ok to just forget about the rule of law. oh, there's a law that says i got to provide a budget? i'm not doing it. i'll get around to it. but the law says he must. is he above the law? apparently so. because of the 11 times in the last 90 years when the budget was late, four of them were this president. when you talk to economists and you read what economists are saying, and you're concerned about the downgrade in the credit rating because of how much more money that will put us in debt, that future yen rations will have to pay, when you talk to them you look at what they're saying. there's a couple of things they point out, one of the things that helped this country is our belief and support for the rule of law. that no one is above the law. and yet you look at what this white house is doing. we'll get around to the budget eventually. more insensitive to following the law than any presidency that i can find in history. we have a president who says, you know, i get it. the defense of marriage act was passed into law, signed into law by a former democratic president. but i don't like that law. and i realize congress is not going to change it. so i'm going to ignore the law. i'm going to instruct my attorney general to ignore the law. that kind of thinking means there is no support at the highest level of this country for the rule of law. when we have a president who makes speeches, an attorney general who makes speeches about how they're going to go after illegal gun sales and yet there is blood on the hands of people in this administration and we can't even find out who they are because they're being obscured, for the death of hundreds of human beings who died because this administration forced gun dealers to sell guns that they knew, and they reported, should not be sold. and they were told by their federal government, their executive branch you do it anyway because we're going to follow the guns new york effect, the guns were not followed. they made their way criminals' hands, as was intended. but they weren't followed. and now the administration says they want to support the rule of law and go after these illegal gun sales? they have to start with their own administration. and then we have a president that instead of coming to capitol hill, where most of the elected representatives of the country are, there's one down pennsylvania avenue, actually, two, vice president, and there's 535 down here. and sitting down and working out a comprehensive immigration bill, instead of doing that, the president announces, you know, i don't like the laws that were duly passed by prior congresses, democrats, signed into law, by democrats and republican presidents, i realize what the law is. i don't like the law so as i speak, so shall the new law be. and the mainstream media just laps it up because they're too ignorant of what the rule of law means that you don't have a monarch at the end of pennsylvania avenue that just espouses law as he gets ready to because he doesn't like the law that was duly passed. come down here and work with us and if we can secure the border, so that we can make sure people won't get in who want to destroy our way of life, the drug cartels, the radical islamists across the border, that are working with the drug cartels now that ewant to destroy -- we've got to make sure we have people coming in that will continue to make the country great. . i have great hope what the hispanic community can do for this country, because generally speaking, those i know, strong faith in god, devotion to family, hard work ethic, that's what made america great in my opinion. we need that kind of input, but it's got to be legal. the immigration services is an embarrassment, one of the worst in the world. you can get a visa quicker in other countries than you can here. it is embarrassing. if we are going to get on track, we have to get back to a president and a congress that believes the rule of law and when the president will not follow the law, there has to be consequences. i have talked to democratic and republicans that were part in different administrations. tell me, when you were in the administration, when you were in the white house, is it true that i heard that individuals would come together, both parties, both ends of the capital and talk to the president and say look, you are usurping control that was given to congress in the constitution and we'll have to shut you down and don't act within the constitution? that doesn't happen within in this administration and it's time it must. we owe it to the country and future generations. the president has said, ", if congress is going to tie the debt ceiling votes, which we have never done in our history, i will not play that game. the president needs to have somebody around him that knows the truth. that poor man is being lied to. all you have to do is look back in our history. every cut -- every time there was a cut in spending, it was often tied to the debt ceiling negotiations. go back to 1985, to 1990, 1993, 1997, 2010. speaker pelosi, in 2010, with president obama, tied a pay-go provision. she did it. why is it so wrong that the republicans want to do that in the house, like speaker pelosi did? let's get responsible. but the president doesn't even remember two years ago when speaker pelosi did that. somebody has got to help this poor man understand recent and distant history before the rating agencies say, you know what? we used to think the rule of law was going to help the u.s. economy and help the federal government get around to taking care of its debts, but these guys don't even follow the rule of law anymore. and as far as what the economists say, yeah, but we have democratic dynamism. look what obama is doing to that. look at what overregulation is doing to that. the economy is hurting. the economy is waiting to take off if the president and the senate that is bogging down bills that would free up the economy to go -- if they would get out of the way, this economy would go and people would get to work, wouldn't need unemployment and wouldn't need to beg to the master government, but do it on their own as free people. it's time to get back to following the rule of law. it's time to get back to having a government that doesn't put off the current debt on future generations, because if we don't , our names will not be called blessed by future jean rations. den jations. we will be cursed. it is my prayer that we get to be responsible in the coming months and the only way we can get there is if people are honest about our history. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. >> efforts to combat gun violence. also joining us is andy cole who wrote an article entitled "the to remake politics." "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 eastern. coming up tonight on c-span. a look at the environment, disasters and the gulf coast. then a summit on gun violence from john hopkins university. later, a debate on the hurricane sandy relief bill. after the sandy hook elementary school shootings president obama created a task force headed by vice president biden to make new recommendations to curve gun violence. the president will unveil the proposals wednesday, live coverage starts at 11:45 eastern. next, a discussion on issues impacting the gulf coast including natural disasters and a look back at hurricane sandy. we'll hear from the director of the geeological survey. this is an hour. >> our next guest brings home many issues of cascading disasters and municipal events impacting -- multiple events impacting the gulf coast. we are aware of wide range of issues, ranging from hurricanes and the impacts they have on -- the storm impacts, the deepwater horizons bill. today's speakers on this panel are marcia who is the director of the gioological survey. jerome zeringue who is the executive director of the coast of protection and restoration authority of louisiana and part of the management team of the gulf of mexico alliance. that is a grouping of leaders from all of the gulf coast states. nancy rabalais who is the executive director of the louisiana university's marine department. i should also say she was recently awarded one of the mccar thursday genius prices. congratulations. our fourth speaker is bernie gold stein. i've known him for a long time. he is a public health expert. he's based at the university of pittsburgh, if i remember correctly but more significantly for this panel is chair of the coordinating committee of the gulf regional house outreach program which came from the deepwater horizon settlement. our moderator for this panel is retired admiral thad allen. those of you that were the least bit awake during the deepwater horizon event would have seen thad on the tv so much he is now an honorary member of the media. we consider him based on his extensive media presence to be an ideal person, not only because he knows so much about the subject matter but he absolutely phenomenal in front of a camera. if annie can come to the onsite registration we have something for you. thank you. thad, over to you. >> good morning. it's a pleasure to be here. it's a double pleasure to be here in the presence of this panel and to be with these colleagues that are so knowledgeable about the topic that we're going to cover this morning. they have already been introduced to you i'm knot going to do it again. their bios are in your program and i recommend you take a look at that. i'm honored to be on the podium with them. this morning we're going to talk a little bit about the gulf of mexico. i'm going make a couple of remark then i'm going pass it to the panel. i would like you to think about what converges in the gulf of mexico. i think part of the uniqueness of that body of water and every body of water can claim some type of uniqueness is the extraordinary natural environment that exists there. if you look at the great waters, the mississippi river, the straits of florida you look at the diversity in the gulf of mexico. then look at the challenges between, what i call the interaction between the man-made world and the natural world. this is a very important part of the world but also a very complex part of the world. what you get as we have an increasing population and expension of the infrastructure you have increasing interaction with the natural environment, greater degrees of complexity. when you introduce challenges like climate change and uncertainty, the level of the types of events that can occur there in terms of the magnitude and consequences grows. we know the frequency is increasing. we're going to talk about this unique area of the world from a couple of different perspectives. i would like you to think about a couple of things as we do this. this concept of restill yantcy. -- resiliantcy. having done many, many months in the gulf of several different disasters and crisis that were down there i came to think of resiliantcy similar to the human immune system. the pre-existing conditions are not created by the event but the extent that they are present. they are capacitier the baited. i think about what we can do to -- i'm talking about vulnerable populations, how we create supply chains and how the infrastructure can help or hurt us. everything in total allows us to understand an event occurs and the environment reacts to it. move on after the event after it has finished and learn how to mitigate if it occurs again. with that in mind, we're going to take a couple different views of the gulf as we move forward. then that have we will be interested in carrying out a dialogue with you. let's start out with nancy rabalais. again, her biois in the program. i will tell you that i learned today she has been awarded a mcarthur prize and i would like you to congratulate her. [applause] >> thank you and no, i'm not buying you lunch. thad said a lot of things i was going to say in my opening comments. of course the gulf of mexico is extremely productive and dynamic. a lot of that is driven by the mississippi river which is 41% of the lower 48 states. so it has a major influence of the water quality. resulting high productivity fisheries and other economic resources such as oil and gas, geology time, high carbon. the area is also subject to what we inside call multiple stressors and sometimes they are multiple influences and again, that is a result of human and natural processes ongoing. there are a couple of highlight natural problems in louisiana. the high land loss rates in the area, the influence of the oil and gas industry that also depends on the living row surses, the fisheries. a lot of natural dynamics. the plain subpoena continuely changing and wants to change all the time even if people don't want it to change. local areas subject to sea level rise and of course, seems like always occurring hurricanes that impact our coastal systems so dramatically. the other issue is long-term subsidence. this is a delta and some things are going to change no matter what we try to do. there is going to be many issues facing you us as we go into restoration of this area. the ideas that this should be based on the knowledge we have ocured over the years and it should benefit the well being of the natural system and the human system. and that we make wise decisions and hopefully do no harm to the system in the process. >> thank you, nancy. next we have bernard goldstein. i'm concluding a job right now for governor cuomo state response to hurricane sandy. some things that have crossed my view and some of the issues i dealt with have to do with public health, occupational heanlt safety open, and how you deal with large populations in stress and how do you bring in a response force in and make sure their safety and health is maintained while you do that. we're going to look forward to your comments. >> thanks, thad. i'm going speak about a program that is related to public health and try to raise the issue, briefly of the interface of what we do in public heanlt with the whole concepts of rezip yans that we heard. there is a very unique situation. the gulf, we would add to it there are unique group of people with relatively important health needs. the states, the areas there tend to rank in the 40's among the 50 states among the health care or any health indicator of general well being. we're dealing with a population that does not have great access to health care and does not have a strong health basis as it needs. the rest of us have access to and as you know, we in the united states we are not the healthiest people in the world to start with. the group is called the gulf region outreach program it's goal to expand capacity to health care services, including primary care and environmental medicine in these gulf coast communities. it is developed jointly by b.p. and the council and it is part of the settlement that you have heard about it. $7.6 billion may sound like a small amount it is a very significant piece of money. i would not be as definite as i'm going to be until last week when the judge signed off on the settlement that did include this. i will put a disclaimer on, there is one month that an appeal could come through and change things but we feel comfort with going forward with what i'm describing. the beneficiaries that are target red carpet under served communities in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and the florida panhandle. there are four components to this. the first is is a program serving the developing improved community health programs. it is run by louisiana public health institute joined with the alliance institute which is a community-based organization. there is a mental and behavioral health program which has louisiana state university, southern mississippi university, the university of south alabama and the university of west florida. there is a literacy program which includes a washington-based group. that's got the littercy aimed at the literacy of the community and the community workers and those involved in with community activism and community projects. finally, there is a community health worker training program that is based at the university of south alabama. the overall goal here is one where resilience comes up in the language all the time but the resilience is very much in keeping with what we would do in public health. yesterday there was a meeting held at e.p.a. by e.p.a. concerning a resilience. you will hear a presentation later in this conference as to the outcome of it. i was taken by a couple of comments. one comment was system evolves in diminished resilience. think about that as terms of individuals. we're evolving to the point of aging and that is what we've done. you mention the immune system, i hope you all have flu shots. right? but those of us in my age range need the flu shot more than younger, healthier people do because we're more at risk. the whole risk issue for individuals, the vulnerability issue is what we deal with in public health in trying to improve the ability to respond to problems. we think of it in terms of primary, second, teshry prevention. er the,ry is the third when you go to the doctor and you already have the sickness. this will be a five-year effort. we have -- it is not a research program but does have a strong evaluation component to it. we hope that out of this approach we will learn more about resilience of communities in relation to being able to deal with health threats and dealing with the social capital that plays a major role in community response but how can that be built up in working with the public infrastructure and working with communities to improve public resilience. >> thank you. i think we would all agree that it has been tough the last 10 to 15 years fir the state of louisiana. whether they are related to the demographics, the characteristics of the community, the geographic location. also the entrance to one of the great waterways to the world and the traffic we depend upon for for the vyability of the country. i want to thank him for the work that he has done when i was down there. go ahead. >> thank you. it is better to see you under better serks. if you think resiliencecy is a challenge try having access to the food we have and staying healthy. it is difficult. in terms of how we address the resilientcy and the issues we deal with in the coast and trying to tie that to the tax base and relate that both from a local regional perspective but also a national perspective. when you look at it, 30% of this nation's g.d.p. comes from the gulf coast. you look at the population increase we've had. since 1970 there has been 1009% increase in the gulf coast region. the people are there, the vulnerabilities are there but also it is significant to what it provides to the nation. from the states perspective and also from the gulf we recognize that healthy ecosystems also can mean healthy economies. from louisiana, what we have taken -- what we believe is a very good first effort the addressing the vulgarrables that exist in reducing that risk is with the state's matter of fact plan which is a long-term plan to reduce the economic significants and reduce the risk across the coast. we believe we can achieve protection for all coastal communities. it is that resource that is important. the states provide and the gulf provides to the nation, it if it is going to be afforded through the nation. we believe with this plan we can have sustainable healthy ecosystems but also healthy communities. there's an essence of -- there is a form of social engineering because if you can't ensure the communities, the supermarket, the schools, the things that the communities depend on, the communities will not survive. we want to make sure we will develop a healthy system but also healthy communities that can provide those resources. we have come a long way, it is not perfect but we have a plan to achieve these sustainability and protecting the communities long term that are critical to the region and to the nation. i think is something we're working with the other gulf states in light of what happened with the oil spill. unfortunately, that event will provide some resource, it won't be enough but putting those resources that he mentioned, making sure we're putting those to good use and thinking long-term to address those problems and to reduce the risk to protect the ecosystems and the commies. >> -- academies. >> >> i think what we fail to understand is sometimes these issues whether they are long-term are difficult, complex problems are usually beyond the bounds of one particular agency to solve on their own. in addressing these problems or black swans whatever you want to call them is the future of leadership that is required in government today. marcia mcnutt has worked with me for many, many occasions, most notably during the oil spill. you're looking at one of the fine lead thears worked with the government to make decisions matter and make the difficult decisions. i'm proud to work with her during the oil spill and i'm proud to introduce her now. marcia? >> thank you. the gulf coast is under threats and in particular, i want to speak of those that impact life and property. it is a deadly combination of loss of natural protection, rising seas from global warming, increasing intensity and number of storms, and more people and critical infrastructure that lies in the coastal zone in the path of those storms. there's no doubt but the coastal zone is a desirable but it is a dangerous place to live and it is getting more dangerous all the time. so what is the solution? well, the good news is that research can help. let me provide you with an analogy. we know that fault zones are dangerous places to live but thanks to science we have increased more than two orders of nag any attitude the safety of living in earthquake country. that fact was demonstrated by the different experiences in death and destruction in haiti where earthquake resilientcy is nonexistent and chile that took its playbook from california. that's why i'm optimistic that science and engineering cals make the coastle zone a safer place to live. there are important differences between the problem of earthquake hazards and coastal hazards. if we put aside those umph bumper stick thears say stop plate tectonics. huges have an effect on the rate -- humans have the an effect on the rate and the intensity of earthquakes. on the other hand, we have increased coastal hazards by increasing the rate of wetland loss anbar yur island erosion and sea level rise. what this means in addressing coastal hazards we need to confront both mother nature and the enhanced risk from impacts. i would argue the philosophy we have to approach this with is exactly the same. scientists can make recommendations on issues such as what is the recur rans rate of the threat. what are the effects that the threat pose to our lives and our property. what actions do we need to take to mitigate those threats? engineers can take the input from the scientists and design appropriate structures and carry out the mitigation projects. in the earthquake case, it was put of the hands of local communities to vol tearly take those recommendations from the scientists and engineers and into building standards and with those actions ultimately saves lives and property. i expect a similar approach would be appropriate in the coastal zone. the settlement from the oil spill gives an opportunity for the region a new lease on life. top fund science in other words too the right things and engineering in other words to do the things right. we should not squander this opportunity on projects that won't make a lasting difference. thank you. >> thank you, marcia. one comment that crosses through all of the discussions that have occurred thus far, it is this notion of communicating the conditions that exist -- exist today. the importance of resilience where we can change behaviors. trying to protect school children until california there is a drill that brings in the community but it started with school children. we need to learn how to have learge conversation about how to understand these issues, how to communicate them to the public. there is always risk to communication but there has to be risk and an understanding of the behaviors that are needed to mitigate these events before they occur. going forward, i think that is the next important conversation we need to have. i saw something collecting question cards and he is running up here right now. in the long-term can there be resiliantcy in the gulf systems that was pointed without with massive population growth? you want to start with that one? >> i would love to. there is never going to be a silver bullet fix it and forget it to this problem. we believe, again, addressing those things that we can achieve , using the river, using the things that built the delta. mitigating the risk, building stronger, building smarter we can mitigate. if we use the tools we have we do believe, even with the spreesed population that we do have and the desire for people to live along the coast because of the fact that the access and resources it provides we have the capability. we demonstrated it with the master plan. the way we are going to achieve it we have to take from a federal perspective more proactive approach. if you look at it, for every dollar invested in terms of mitigating translates to $11 up to $30 per dollar in investment. if there are things that we can do proactively that will reduce that risk and creates sustainability for communities and for the ecology as well for those resources. in the master plan we laid it out and it is a plan that will be modified and tweak but the answer is yes, we can do things that will allow us to survive an live along the coast. >> nancy, make you can address the fa second of this. what can you do going forward. like in the lower pat of the mississippi where you have 40 miles of a strip of land that is half a mile wide. is there a threshold that the islands are going to migrate and how do we have a discussion of is this the right place for people to live? >> certainly. as more and more people come to the coast more and more people want to live on the coast. i think we have to take a very strong attitude about where people can live and where theyen can't live. -- and can't live. there were floods on the mississippi river and they moved people out of the flood open plain and now they are building in the floodplain and that doesn't make sense. the state of texas is proactive in what was land has become open water after several hurricanes. we need to protect the people that are there. we need to provide alternatives for them. if it looks like their homes are going to be under water, the lab where i work is outside of any levee system. and the water level gets higher and higher with every hurricane we've had. and we all know we're going to have more. we need to think into the future and not 30 years because we have to take care of the place where people want to live and provide the safety for them at the same time. >> any other comments or i'll go to the next question. would you comment on the progress in implementing the b.p. plan. are there institutions in place that does not make priority projects and monitor their progress. >> there are certainly are institutions in place and there are plans in place. there have been entities designated in leadership roles and there have been plenty of good ideas put forward. i think maybe jerry can commonts more on what the progress has been on those but some of the principles i've seen put forward, i think are excellent. for example, just to comment on one of them, i'm very much in line with is that to the extent that we can restore natural processes. for example, during the gulf spill, the governor of louisiana, i think, you know, his heart was in the right place when he wanted to construct some barrier islands in other words to stop oil from coming ashore. but the problem with it was, unless you restore natural processes to nourish those islands it was going to be a very expensive undertaking that was going to be very short-lived. there was the chance that the construction of the islands would do more harm in the short temperature than the long term effect of the islands. in the projects that are being proposed theys have a sound science under lying them which has at its foundation that natural processes have to be at the -- under pinning these such that they will have long duration that the restoration will continue and you don't just build something to see it all go away again. >> i think there was some science in the respect that what they were trying to achieve with what the natural system would have achieved. the barrier island would would have stopped the oil from getting into the sensitive ecosystem. we're trying to achieve the connection to the river. during the oil spill, we opened some of the limited diversion, just small diversions which had a ben official impact but significance in terms of our ability to rebuild or connect to the delta is insignificant. so we're prosing long-term sustainable diversions that can rebuild and sustain the coast of louisiana. part of the issue too is also trying to address the disconnect that we currently have between the largest unfunded mandate the nation faces outside of social security is the flood insurance program. we're going to have to address long-term how we're going top continue that program and the disconnect within the agency that carries out a lot of the programs which is can core of engineers which is responsible for achieving those protection measures and the process you have to go through to build these protection measures. it is a process that has to be changed. there are issues that we can under take to increase resilientcy. in addition, the natural system is critical from the gulf perspective from protection to the communities themselves but also sustaining the ecosystems. we can and there are plans to achieve that benefit. >> i think also one final comment on this. restoration, all of the projects are by necessity have to be a compromise between the existing economics of the gulf coast and the ideal restoration. because we have the oil and gas infrastructure and we have the requirement to maintain the shipping channels. so there is the -- ideal and restoration would be to allow the mississippi to meander the way it did before there was an atempt to control the river. there was the muslim lower loss of wetlands before there was all the development in oil and gas. we know we will never again go back to that totally natural state. where do we find the dividing line between the appropriate line of restoration that will get us back to those natural states that provided more sentiment delivery to the coast and more natural protection for the wetlands? and yet, provide the economic for the coast in terms of the shipping channels and the protection from floods and the oil and gas industry that we know is also important to the people of the gulf. >> at the risk of plugging a book here. when i was working at hurricane katrina every time i had a new person come into my staff i had them read a book called "rising tide." it is the history of how the mississippi river was changed to accommodate navigation and the impacts of the 1927 flood and it created some of the conditions that was a result of hurricane katrina. from our learnings of the goalsr low income communities but will face disasters especially with potential for hydrocracking. >> that is of a good question. from a health point of view, what we have learned, is a zygote social impact. -- psycho social impact. it has to do with all sorts of things with our willingness to share the truth, which could be one of the most telling problems that came out of the gulf. if i asked for a show of hands, how many are concerned about the fact there was a secret ingredient in all this? how many of you have ever taken an over-the-counter laxatives? it turns out that confidential business agreement is over the counter. i am not worried about human exposure to that particular chemical. there was no reason for the secrecy. we are getting a bunch of confidential issue, but i find what is fascinating is the stuff that is coming from underground. they say notwithstanding any of the above, we do not tell them that just adds to the fears, adds to the concerns. i am not saying there are no affects in the gulf. the reviewers were concerned we are not saying enough about how many people will keep benzene. the effects are real, and i think that is what we need to whir gone. >> i have always tried to use the standard of transparency as a way to deal with the public. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the d.c. ecosystem -- tsetse ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize -- deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and some of them are not there anymore post hurricane isaac, so the idea of these multiple stressors that work on a habitat. i am on a panel on the effects of the peace bill on ecosystem services, -- avaya bp -- of the bp oil spill on ecosystem services. i think that is one area we need to look at. >> what nancy said, i would underscore the idea of understanding natural capital and its impact on the cuban economy. -- the human economy. the effect of multiple stressors on the system so we can understand what more impact would be. another thing i have seen is after the oil spill there were concerns but would come out of the fishing community, and whether recreational or commercial sometimes when they would notice there were abnormalities in species that would be found in some ketches, and they would not know whether they could positively attributed spill, cts of the oils alon because there were not a baseline condition is taken before the spill. i think for important ecosystems or any other ecosystem, we need to have baseline conditions of what is the state of health of that ecosystem and what is the occurrence of abnormalities before any untoward event occurs. >> the long term data are incredibly important, and we also need to continue monitoring in the period to learn more about the ecosystem. there are a lot of contaminants in the marshes, a lot of background information. the important thing is you never have the opportunity to know what is going to happen in a place you have not been monitoring. there has to be a strategic method to find those places because you cannot do it everywhere. you need a model condition ito spend time on a particular area and translate those results to another area. >> my personal opinion is there is a latency between human activity and our ability to understand we need to understand the area, and we always come in after the fact and try to determine what the parameters are for that system. i do not know how you get the match set up because it involves a crosswalk, and it is one of the responsibilities of government and it extends into the international environment, which makes it more complex, but let me use that as a segue. we know and hear about economic impact repeatedly, but who speaks for the environment, and how can we keep that the boys drowned out as a difference for relationships? how do we close the cycle of latency and try to understand where we need information? >> let me start with a comment you made, which i found to be fascinating, that there is between a $11 and $30 for every dollar spent. an ounce of prevention is worth every cure. that is a 16 fold ratio. we know that. our policy has to put that in place. we need a baseline. of course we do. the only thing forcing the base lending rates to the baseline is smart companies -- the only thing forcing the baseline is smart companies, and they may as well get a baseline, because they will show we started which 30 walker, -- with 30 water, -- dirty water, but there are no resources to get the baseline. we know we need to drill the northeast over the next couple days. we need that baseline. we need it desperately, and we needed for human health as well. lots of different communities have different kinds of diseases. they come in clusters. when there is a group of kids with autism or adults with pancreatic cancer, somebody is going to say, we did not have that until the drill rig went up there? we need to have the debate. you get the lawyers involved. you try to do a retrospective at exposure study. it is too hard. we need a baseline study that includes human health parameters so we can see if it has changed. >> you want to say something amont? \ >> i think it is important to place a value on ecosystem services. there is of value to the ecosystem and the resources that depend upon those ecosystems, and we need to address what the value is. there is of value to the fisheries and all the things that are important but we depend on but have value, and until we can develop that appreciation and use that, it is going to be important to use that in how we are going to send that message. >> how confident are we about the causes of the gulf since zone? -- dead zone and what we can do change it? >> the scientific consensus is increase in nutrient loading over the last decade or so has led to increased primary production in the gulf and worsening hypoxia, the area that is getting larger and sometimes more severe, so there is a direct linkage between what happens and in the gulf of mexico, whether it is contaminants, e. coli, it all affects the coastal system. as far as the science, it is very clear. these changes have happened in our recent past, not over geologic time and did not occur at the turn of the last century and the early 1900's, and we know that from ge logic records. -- from a geologic records. we know the issue is to generate a willingness for both political and social will to make changes in the watershed, many of them directed at agriculture practices. the usgs has determined most of the nitrogen and phosphorous come from those sources but also make land-use and land architect changes that can be made in artificial wetlands, allowing them to put it away force us -- away from us. i think it is getting going. >> back to the comments about the mississippi river, i think when you have is a multiplier of sex that were not intended at the start. you basically made an escape route for the majority of the water. when you made was a place to shoot that into one place and keep putting it there. we are seeing a combined affect of decisions that in some cases were made a century ago. >> if people want more missouri water to come in, but all the dams and reservoirs are where a lot of the sentiment is stored, so there is a lot of competing for the use of this distributor a. >> i have something to clarify regarding the investment of $11 versus $30. >> it depends on which parameters you use, but based upon flow protection measures and would have been in place that equates to a reduction in risk. it equated suit hundreds of millions of dollars if not for the measures put in place, so it depends on what you look at, but it is primarily on what they could make in the risk and what it translates to on the benefit it would provide. >> i am going to combine a couple of questions, and that is given the things we have talked about, increased population density, issues involving resiliency, is there some threshold we should consider rebuilding after events like katrina or the storms we have had encountered? >> the question is should we rebuild. from a local perspective i would answer that we should. it is not only from the local perspective but from the national perspective. in terms of the resources it provides for the nation but also our ability to sustain those resources and provide those to the nation, affording the communities that provide those resources to warrant protection, and we can demonstrate how we can build more resilience community's but we can also provide a natural buffer. the thing that completely changed the hydrology and the building of the delta, which cause a precipitous drop of wetlands we experienced, we are getting it from both ends. the plan we put together recognizes that. we believe in the next 50 years we can develop a plan and create aa way to come an sustainable ecosystem and a sustainable coast to the nation. >> i like my job, so this is where i pass the microphone on slacking. -- fracking. not really. i already stated we need to make hard decisions about when we can do and what the mississippi can do for us good and bad now and think about the future and take care of the people in some way. some farmers have suggested shrimpers should find a new way to make a living, and that does not sit well with me, but times are changing, and we have to be able to keep up with it and anticipate it. >> the question is is there a threshold. we say, of course there is a threshold. you could not move 100 million people without destroying people. there is some level you cannot keep to it, but it is a threshold with different vulnerabilities, and vulnerabilities change with time. what the threshold is will depend upon vulnerabilities and resilience, and that is how much you are able to build in the gulf is dependent upon how resilience you are going to be, and the resiliency is created to go about doing the things we need to do. >> i am going to speak right now as an earth scientist with the perspective of the time, not as director of usgs. as someone with a perspective of deep time, this is how the earth works. people should not live below sea level, and the seas are rising. here is what happens. it is not the gradual rise of sea level but is going to get anyone. it is the combination of extreme events superimposed on the gradual rise of sea levels, and the extreme events that destroy our natural protection, and here is what we saw with superstorm sandy. there were some amazing predictions done by hillary stockton, who is a scientist who looked up the barrier dunes along the northeast coast, and she predicted x marks the start with amazing accuracy of exactly which dunes would be breached and where the storm was going to go right through and inundates the coast. because of how good the models have become. and she did another prediction after the storm of because of the loss of barrier islands, because how much they eroded, how much protection they offer now going into the future for future storms, and it turns out now for the next storm, even if it is not a superstar, even if it is a run-of-the-mill nor'easter, a number of breaches and inland coastal flooding will be widespread for the northeast because of the loss of that protection, so we have crossed already a threshold, even though sea level has not increased a lot between last october and now just because of superstorm sandy. superstorm sandy was a threshold for the northeast, and we crossed it. >> marcia will be heading to monterey after her service, so i want to congratulate her and they occur. -- thank her. [applause] >> thanks for a phenomenal session and wonderful insights. >> president obama will unveil a new set of gun-control proposals following the newtown, conn., shootings. next comi-con and now a conference on gun violence. the house agreed to hurricane -- next, a conference on gun violence. the house agreed on hurricane sandy relief aid. >> on washington journal we will talk about budget and debt issues with the ranking member of the ways and means committee. also, the chairman of the house judiciary committee will take your calls on immigration laws and the debates over proposals addressing gun violence, and we will be joined by a staff reporter whose recent article is titled "the mass of new plan to remake american politics -- massive new plan to remake american politics." >> next, a conversation on the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. we will hear from adam winkler, the author of the book gunfight. this is about 20 minutes. >> he is certainly one of the great emerging voices, insightful and influential of the nature of the meaning of the second amendment in the wake of the supreme court's decision, so thank you for joining me in this effort. i want to thank the organizers, everyone from the president down to staff that has organized a terrific and hopefully impact full conference. i am not going to talk with any power. , because as a law enforcement -- as a law professor i do not like the focus on anyone but me. i am here to talk about the amendment to the constitution and what it says about major reform proposals being considered in the wake of the new town massacre. as you probably know, the second amendment provides a well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. it is almost as if james madison just discovered this wonderful a, andhing, the comm wanted to put it in there as many times as possible, and is as confused americans as they try to figure out what was meant by this cryptic amendments, breaking up ideas. a sure sign of this confusion comes from a lot of the public statements we have seen since president barack obama said it was time for meaningful action to reduce gun violence, because what we have seen this many people argue in the president is not now read it arguing the president is preparing an assault on our rights -- when we have seen as many people are doing the president is taking away our rights. i call this confusion, because many people apparently have not been reading the court cases that interpret the second amendment and tell us what it means. as larry and i argue in our contribution, the most popular proposals being considered today are likely constitutional. that is not to say there are not any questions about any of them, but they are likely to be upheld by the supreme court should they be enacted. from background checks to restrictions on sale of high- capacity magazines and even a ban on assault weapons, we think it is likely the supreme court will uphold these provisions. in defense of those who do seem confused about the nature of our second amendment rights, the supreme court has not done a great job of clarifying what is the scope of our second amendment rights. as most of you know, in 2008, the supreme court held that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection. two years after that case, it struck down a lot in washington, d.c., that banned handguns and made it unlawful for you to use a shotgun or rifle for self- defense. ninth two years after that -- two years after that the supreme court held the second amendment similarly applied to state and local governments and effectively declared chicago's them on handguns unconstitutional. on handguns ban unconstitutional. advocates make it clear exactly how the courts should go about interpreting the second amendment and applying it to other gun-control laws. it is one thing to identify a right in the constitution, but where the rubber hits the road is figuring out which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional, so they asked the supreme court to adopt clear standards so they can apply the second amendment in the tidal wave of lawsuits but was sure to come if the supreme court found that an individual right to bear arms. the tidal wave came, but the clarity did not. we have seen a huge number of cases, a little more than 300 federal court decisions on constitutionality of a wide variety of gun-control laws since 2008, and they refuse to articulate a clear standard of review and said, we will address the questions as they come about, but the supreme court did provide some guidance as to the nature and meaning of the second amendment and how to approach gun-control questions. the court said it was not a right to have any gun anytime, anywhere you wanted. it was not a libertarian license for you to have whatever gun you choose to have. the supreme court made clear the second amendment is not unlimited, and looking at history and tradition as guideposts, the supreme court recognized many gun-control laws have been upheld under this amendment over american history. they pointed out the majority upheld restrictions on concealed ann curry firearms. the court also said not everything that could be considered an armed -- restrictions on concealed firearms. this included weapons in use for common purposes, not dangerous and unusual weapons like machine guns, and perhaps the most important question, the supreme court said nothing should be taken to cast doubt longstanding -- to cast out longstanding provisions. when you think about it, that counters probably the majority of gun control laws. the court said all of these laws out thisl, iand pointed list was not meant to be exhaustive and pointed out there are other measures law enforcement can take. with this limited guidance the lower courts have confronted this tidal wave. i mention 300 cases today, but only a small fraction of those federal court cases have invalidated the challenged laws. the vast majority of gun-control laws have been upheld and rely on the decisions. we are seeing an emerging framework for analyzing gun- control laws that has become the norm in the majority of circuits that have addressed the issue. it is essential for the courts to undertake a two-step process in analyzing constitutionality of a gun control law. they determine if a particular law being challenged, if that burdens activities within the scope of the second amendment. the court said the corps' second amendment right is the right to have a functional firearm hornein the home. not everyone can be said to fall within the scope of the second amendment. for instance, bans on felons or the mentally ill. that obviously restricts the right for someone to have a gun in their home for self-defense, but a court suggests that felons and mentally ill are outside the scope of the second amendment. they do not have a right to have a firearm in their home for self-defense. they are outside the second amendment. a lot of courts have universally held restrictions on guns, possessions of guns by people with restraining orders are also constitutional. many of those courts have said those people are outside the scope of the second amendment, so the law did not burden second amendment rights at all in these cases. we might also think of restrictions on machine guns or silencers, which are not thought to be arms under the purposes of the second amendment, not typically used for self-defense purposes and not subject to the second amendment dispute. if some activity is regulated by a lot like a down on silencers or machine guns -- like a ban on silencers or machine guns, the law is upheld, and the case is over. if a law does burden activity under the second amendment, the court as a second question, and i asked richard the court asks a second question, and i ask how severe is -- the court asks the second question, and i ask how severe is that? they determine if the law is sufficiently well-designed to serve the government ends. this has two steps, weighing the analysis of ends and means. is the law well-deserved -- well-designed to meet those needs? how is a lot of burden? if it nullifies the right to have a functional firearm in the home, it is likely invalid, no matter what, so we have seen handgun bans in washington, d.c., and chicago struck it down. as they apply to law abiding citizens, a law that dems people from having access to those weapons is t -- that bans people from having access to these weapons is unconstitutional. maybe restrictions from having firearms in public housing is likely to be the type of law courts would say is a severe burden on second amendment rights of likely in valid. -- and likely invalid. very minor burdens, not a significant burden at all, but the court would say it is likely the government does not need especially strong reasons to uphold such a law. these might be thought of as incidental burdens. it is often the case you can restrict our rights with what are known as incidental burdens as a way to ensure those who exercise the rights are entitled, so sometimes you will hear that is not how we treat the first amendment. let's think about how we treat the right to vote for the right to marry. those fundamental rights are protected by our constitution. the court says you can require people to register so they can vote. you can require people to get a license before they get married. these are incidental burden is the supreme court says that do not stop people from exercising the right to vote or getting married. where the law is an intermediate burden, little justification has been made. the vast majority of gun control laws fall within the middle ground. they are not a severe burden, and they are not an incidental burden. they fall within the middle range, and courts say where a lot of suburban -- hall law does urban -- where a law does burden the second amendment they are under scrutiny. independent scrutiny is used throughout international law. it basically asks two questions. for the law to survive it has to substantially further a government interest. the government interest has to be when imported government interest, and the law has to further about -- has to be an important government interest, and the law has to further that. the important government interest is public safety, reduction of gun violence. these are some of the most compelling interest the government can have, and when intermediate scrutiny is applied, even burdens on one's right to have a firearm, the first prong of intermediate scrutiny is easily met. to answer the second question, does this law substantially further the interested public safety, courts look to see did lawmakers have adequate evidence to support the idea this law would further public safety? that is why so much work being done at this conference is important with regard to what happens with gun-control in the future. in new york one of the houses passed a major gun-control law. i am sure it will be challenged under the second amendment, and it is the research produced the help satisfy the courts there is a substantial relationship between a gun control and reform and reduction of public safety. how does this emerging free- market apply to the proposals -- how does this emerging affect apply to these proposals? we might think of universal background checks. closing the gun show loophole, it is a private sale loophole allows a person to person fails to occur without a background check. there are proposals -- person to person sales to occur without a background check. does this burden protect a second amendment activity? not likely. it serves as a simple screen that is used to determine who is entitled to exercise this right and who is not entitled to exercise the rights. very much equivalent to what we see with the right to vote. it requires people to register in advance, and the burden is most likely to be an incidental burden white registration requirements, -- not just like registration requirements. it is not a severe burden on a gun purchaser. it happens quickly without much trouble. even if the burden is thought to be more severe, this law is well designed to deprive criminals and the mentally ill access to firearms. according this requirement matches of the recognition of the legitimacy of laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. what about assault weapons? to determine if assault weapons are arms protected by the second amendment, we need to know if the firearms are in common use or if they are dangerous and unusual weapons. that was a dichotomy set up by the united states supreme court. if they are in common use like handguns we have to go to the second step of the analysis. if they are dangerous and unusual weapons like machine gun, the analysis would stop there. assault weapons are pretty commonplace. they become popular and firearms in a gun rights community. there are apparently tens of millions of these firearms out there, arguably they are commonly used, but one argument is while they are common they are not commonly used for the core purpose of the second amendment, self-defense. they are poor self-defense weapons. it is hard to maneuver in the home, and projectiles are propelled of such a rate they are likely to pose dangers and who people as they go through walls, endangering family members or neighbors. if that is right, assault weapons would not be thought to be within the scope of the second amendment, and yet i should admit we talked extensively that there are some reasonable arguments you could make against an assault weapons ban. an assault weapons ban by one meaning says the gun is in common use if used for any lawful purpose, and if that is the case they are generally used for unlawful purposes. an assault weapons ban might not satisfy the demands, might not further the government's interest in public safety, given that they are rarely used in crime, and the law adopted now mirrors and now the 1994 assault weapons to iran, and that was notorious -- assault weapons ban, that was notorious for loopholes. i think the government could have difficulty defending such a law. i should say the highest court in the country to consider an assault weapons ban today was the d.c. circuit, and it upheld such a ban. the court assumed the weapons were in common use, but the ban imposed no real burden on the ability to have a firearm in self-defense. similar analysis would go to do restrictions on high-capacity magazines. would those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional? it is a similar case. are they using? are they for self-defense? the same case upheld the sale of high-capacity magazines. yes, they are in common use. there are millions out there. however, the court said self- defense does not require more than 10 rounds of ammunition. there remains issues of whether this substantially furthers government interests. recent data suggest the 1994 ban did have an impact, but the rate at which high-capacity magazines were recovered who appears to have recovered significantly in the wake of the lot and increase dramatically after the law was inspired. in my book i tried to show there is a long history of gun- control in america. gun-control is not the modern 20th-century invention many tell us. the right to keep and bear arms has not historically been thought to be a significant limit on reasonable gun-control laws short of disarmament. today the impediment remains congress, not the supreme court. the court has made clear many forms of gun control, including the various proposals being considered in washington today, to not offend the second amendment. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. our last presentation of the day, we have dr. colleen barry. >> more from the gun violence summit at john hopkins university. next a look of public opinion on gun-control laws. this is 35 minutes. >> it is an honor to say i am a faculty member here at johns hopkins and a member of this extraordinary community. before i begin, the title of my talk is public opinion on proposals to strengthen u.s. gun laws, and i want to acknowledge my wonderful collaborators on this work. i think nobody in this room or maybe on the johns hopkins campus is unfamiliar with my collaborators, who have done such fabulous work in the context of this summit but also on this specific study done in a very short timeframe. many of you might not know he is emblematic of the kind of students that are extraordinary. she is the fourth year doctoral student in our ph.d. program, and i think it is fair to say without her talents and involvement in this project it would not have occurred, so thank you. >> i think i may be the only speaker presenting research and who is not an expert on gun policy and gun violence. my expertise is on health policy and mental -- substance- abuse policy. i also spent a lot of time thinking about and conducting public opinion and research and have interest in research methods. as the context i became involved in the work of this summit. i think with things that caught my attention in the weeks following the sandy hook tragedy was as we saw public opinion data come out on this, the majority of polling and research was asking questions about the general attitude from the public. does the public support stricter or less strict gun laws? those perceptions about the nra and relatively little information in the early weeks, no information about american attitudes and support for specific policy proposals, and i think in this fast-paced environment of policy deliberations over this issue, it is critical to understand how the public thinks about specific proposals to strengthen gun laws. we live in a democracy. we should care about what our public things, and we should bring the best research methods to bear on identifying the level of support in the public overall but also to understand how support may vary across some groups in our society, so this is what we did. we designed a data collection instrument to determine support for 33 policies among americans overall by gun ownership and stratified by political party identification, and to get gun ownership, most of the survey were is your typical thousand person poll, and it is hard to give precise estimates using an approach for smaller subgroups within opinion polls, so we over sampled gun owners and non gun owners living in households with guns. we have basically the find the survey. we apologized where do we basically define the survey over christmas. we apologize to our family members. the survey was designed between the 24 and 27. reprogrammed it. -- we program did. we got it on the field in january 2. -- reprogram it0 -- we programmed it. what i am going to present is preliminary data, and there is basically an interim data set, but the results do not change based on distribution of responses. i do not think the results will defer when we do the final analysis by more than a percentage point. the survey that did this does a ton of work across academic disciplines, and they have been a great partner for us entering this over a short time frame, so i want to acknowledge them. they have a probability-based very large web panel, which is a great dancer in the current environment to some of the serious challenges related to conducting telephone research. our results related to the who -- our results related to the share of gun ownership is consistent, within a percentage point of the general social survey. we see 33% of americans reported having a gun in their home or their garage, and that breaks down into two groups. 22% of americans personally identify as gun owners, an 11% of americans identify as non-gun owners living in a household with a gun. that means 67% of americans identified as non gun owners living in non done households. i will stratify by these groups, so just to give you a sense of proportions. i am going to give you a quick rundown of the major findings of the survey, and i am going to get into the data. we find a majority of americans support a gun policies, including a ban on the sale of assault weapons, of them on the sale of -- a ban on the sale of large scale magazines, a range of measures to improve oversight of gun dealers, only five of the 33 policies were supported by less than a majority of the american public. for quite a few policies, the views of non-gun owners living in households with guns were more aligned with other non-gun owners and gun owners, and for many policies the difference was smaller than expected. for me as someone who has not spent my career in this area, they were smaller than i anticipated. we have 20 who did we have 33 policies. there is an -- we have 33 policies. there is a ton of data. i am going to go through a lot of information. this is interesting information, and i am going to talk fast, so bear with me. now everything is described in terms of support. these are assault weapons and ammunition policies. over 65% in support of the ban of assault weapons. the band of the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines that allow guns to shoot more than 10 bullets and more than 20 bullets. i want to point out a near majority or majority support for these policies, and this slide illustrates an interesting thing we saw more generally, which is support who for gun owners, which you can see the report very low levels and support for these policies. we ask about possession of assault weapons, possession of large capacity magazines, and you can see a low level of support in the american population as a whole for both of these policies in the context, and we heard about this this morning of a policy where the government is required to take -- to pay gun owners the fair market value of their weapons. here are the assault weapons and ammunition policies broken down by republicans, independents, and democrats. you can see the sales policies for the weapons. the assault weapons and magazine policies, over 50% of republicans, democrats, and independence support these policies. here are the prohibited persons policies, and this first line illustrates a very broad support among gun owners and non-gun owners for these policies, which include prohibiting a person convicted of two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs of holding a gun, committed of domestic violence restraining order, a serious crime as a juvenile, being on a terrorist watch list, even for a policy daniel talked about yesterday which is preventing a person under 21 from having a handgun, over 50% support among gun owners and among others. here our policies relating to a misdemeanor convictions, and you can see gun owners and non-gun owners are alike in terms of what policies they like the least, and these are two types of misdemeanors related to drunken disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, very low levels of support across the board. here are the breakdowns by political party identification, and with the exception of the misdemeanor policies i described, high levels of support among republicans, independents, and democrats for all of these policies. here are the policies relating to a background checks. the first policy is the universal are ground check. very high levels of support among non-gun owners and gun owners alike. even majority support among nra members who are gun owners as well as high levels of support for these other specific policies relating to background checks. very high support across the political party identification as well for the universal are crown check policy as well as the other and -- universal background check policy as well as the other policies. you can see these policies -- i am going to point out this result. high support for all of these policies, majority's support among the gun owners and near majority support among nra members. i am not going to go through these policies because i am talking quickly right now, but one example is requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a person convicted of knowingly selling a gun to a person who cannot have a gun. here are the policies in terms of political party identification. here are the policies affecting those with mental illness. the first three policies our background check related policies. we have heard a lot about these policies over the last two days, and you can see the high levels of support for these policies, including among gun owners and nra members who are gun owners. the lowest levels of support for a policy allowing people who have lost the right to have a gun to to mental illness to have that right restored if they are determined to not be dangerous. this type of restoration policy is not supported at high levels by any of these subgroups. over a majority at high level of support over a policy to increase spending on mental health screening and treatment as a strategy to reduce gun violence. a majority supported across the board. here is the breakdown of these policies by political party identification. you can see the top three background check policies are supported at high levels by republicans, independents, and democrats, but a petition to regain gun rights has the lowest level of support among all three, and for the policy to increase gun -- government spending on mental health treatment, a little bit more of a political gradient. slightly less than a majority of republicans support this policy, although it is worth noting and a question -- this is why wording is so critical -- that includes the phrase government funding for -- is going to attack into our feet -- going to cap into our phrasing. that is an important phrasing. here are the last three gun policies. requiring a person has high levels of support across forehead including a majority of gun owners. although again the same caveat in terms of using the concept of government funding. there are ways beyond government funding to increase adoption of smartphone technology. here is the policy requiring bylaw that a person locked up the guns in their home when not in use to prevent handling by kids without adult supervision and you can see a gradient of support and some difference in opinion as might be expected on this policy by gun ownership status. here are these three policies in terms of majority support by a political party identification. ok. what can we conclude from this research? first of all, we find high support among -- including among gun owners for a wide range of gun policies. the most feasible policy is from a political perspective including 20 from this list of 33 with a majority support regardless of gun ownership or political party identification. i think the bottom-line from the study as policymakers have a large range of options to choose from which are supported by the american public. i cannot emphasize this enough for in the context of the discussions we have been having over the last couple of days related to the fact that there are multiple levels of problems here and that speaks to the need for more combined and comprehensive approach and this research suggests that kind of approach would be supported by the american public. thank you for your time. [applause] i should say for detailed information, checkout look in two weeks -- the book in two weeks. an enormously quick effort. they're also going through peer review very quickly. daniel tells me we can invade tenets of his concluding remarks -- 10 minutes of his concluding remarks with questions for this panel. are there questions? c-span is still streaming today. maybe the microphones have gone away. here comes one. >> this is a comment. >> can you raise your voice at the end? >> add a question. -- and a question. it is prefaced by -- what a great piece of work. i did not mean you. the research. >> only with tenure can you say things like that. >> you mentioned the importance of language. i have a stake and an interest in the question that dealt with government funding and i appreciate your -- the response may be influenced by the preface of firman funding. here's another thing that influence their response. when we did surveys a little after 2000, we did a series, four ways of random digit dial encompassing 12 -- adults representing the american population and we asked about personalized guns. we asked about personalized guns and we asked about childproof guns. i u
FOX News
Jan 15, 2013 6:00pm PST
, we may not get a deal of any kind on the debt ceiling. it's pushing them away and fitch says, watch out, here comes a downgrade. this is entirely possible with very serious consequences. >> sean: he could use the kids tomorrow as he announces executive orders as props. >> exploit them. >> sean: exploit them, i agree, that's the right term. interesting, is he going to say to them, by the way i'm the guy that's giving you 10 trillion dollars in debt? is he going to say i'm sorry i broke open your piggy bank, young children? i tend to doubt it. the guy won't deal with spending, stuart. >> no, he will not deal with spending, under any circumstances this president will not cut spending, he will not negotiate on that issue, he will not cut spending. his policy is exactly the same now as it has been for the last four years, which is tax the rich, do not cut spending, ignore the buildup in the debt. he now owns this economy. it is his, it's got his name written all over it. >> sean: he was blaming the republicans, they forced me he to sign these things. >> okay, but here is the thing
PBS
Jan 15, 2013 5:30pm PST
. could lose its top credit status if there's a delay in raising the debt ceiling. the federal government is expected to exceed its borrowing limit by march, unless congress acts. if fitch does downgrade u.s. debt, it would join standard and poor's, which took that action in 2011 during the last debt ceiling debate. the u.s. house moved to pass a hurricane sandy relief bill this evening. $17 billion would go for immediate recovery in the affected northeastern states. another $33 billion is for long- term spending. some republicans argued that much of the money isn't for emergency relief at all. california's tom mcclintock called for stripping that funding out. >> according to the congressional budget office, more than 90% of this money won't even be spent this year. that's not emergency relief. $16 billion is to quintuple the size of the community development block grant program. that's the slush fund that pays for such dubious projects as doggie day care centers and doesn't even have to be spent in the hurricane area. >> sreenivasan: other republican >> sreenivasan: other repu
FOX News
Jan 15, 2013 10:00pm PST
downgrade credit, the american credit if we -- if the debt ceiling isn't raised. it's so important t? that we get this debt situation under control, and i think that once again, when you consider what we're doing to our future generations, you know, our children and our grandchildren, currently who have $53,000 debt upon them. we're eroding their possibilities and their opportunities in this great society. so i think we have to have up in washington d.c., the seriousness, to look at the true problem, which is a spending problem. look at mandatory spending programs and we have to stop the exorbitant amount of spending and we have to say, finally, we're going to stop this debt and we're going to get serious, and i think that fitch is very appropriate in saying that if they don't see a curtailing of the spending, that they're going to downgrade us. >> greta: we're going to keep our eye on this, because certainly all eyes are on this debt ceiling these days in washington. stay with us, so congressman, we have much more to talk to you after the break, but first, there is good news for the
FOX News
Jan 16, 2013 1:00am PST
republican party for a very hard fall on both gun control and the debt ceiling. the president simply will not offer any compromise on federal spending that might get a debt deal done. on guns as we just heard, is he threatening executive orders. so i think the president simply wants to damage the republicans rather than solve complicated problems, at least at this juncture. joining us from washington with his take fox news political analyst charles krauthammer. i see it as a chess game. rather than both parties working together to get some gun legislation that might help folks control criminals in that area and rather than getting the debt ceiling done with some, you know, meaningful cuts in spending, the president says, you know, i'm not even going to bother. i want to alienate the republicans so that people will be angry with them. am i wrong? he has been doing that since elections day, i wrote a column ever since september pointing out entire strategy for the fiscal cliff was to split the republicans. it had nothing to do his offers had nothing to do with solving the fiscal issue or so
CNN
Jan 16, 2013 9:00am PST
republicans, he trying to work on the debt ceiling. you have the whole issue of whether or not the debt ceiling is going to be raised, whether or not that is going to be held hostage to actually paying the bills the government has to pay. you also talk about immigration reform. where does this fit in in terms of the president's priorities, do you think? >> well, from where i sat today, obviously it seems to be a very high priority for the president of the united states. i'll let the white house and the administration answer how they're going to deal with congress. that's their task, not mine. but i'm confident that the president, the vice president and the entire administration is going to do everything they can to get the package they proposed today through congress. and, you know, when you heard the president say, i think it's essential, american citizens, the american people have to demand this. we have to act. when you have 1,000 people nearly killed in last 30 days at the hands of gun, when you have mass tragedies like happened in connecticut, aurora, colorado, oregon, enough is en
KRON
Jan 15, 2013 5:00pm PST
. earlier, we said that as we do with the debt ceiling once again we're going as more of a debt popple. this higher interest rate proposal would be devastating for the economy. >> and how about ball mark? >> yes, they have pledged to hire 100,000 veterans that are returning from the war over the next five years. and a job is a job, let us just remember that even if is a transition jobs. soldiers are known for their commitment, sacrifice. wal- mart believes that the leadership to want to be seen as a blue-chip company. >> thank you, rob. and now, coca-cola we all know that obesity is a huge health problem in the u.s. and now - the people at coca-cola seem to be joining the fight against calories. but many wonder if this is really just an example of good marketing. felicia taylor has the story. pay attention to the man walking away from the camera. let's stop the video right here now the question is will the postal truck do the right panel also, coca-cola still seeing increases with their non-cola items. the company is already getting cal ripken to the front of their labels. felicia taylor. >>
CNBC
Jan 16, 2013 4:00am EST
funds to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. the treasury previously estimated the move would give it around $156 billion in additional borrowing capacity. it says retirees will still receive their benefits. in a letter to the house speaker john boehner, the treasury secretary says this step has been taken before during previous debt limit impasses. several conservative republicans are set to introduce legislation to direct treasury to prioritize debt payments if congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling. >>> and president obama will unveil his gun control plan today at 11:45 eastern. he's expected to call on congress to ban military-style assault weapons and the type of high-capacity ammunition used in last month's school shooting in newtown, connecticut. the package will also include efforts to stop school bullying and invest available mental health services. may include several steps the president can take right away without congressional approval. >>> the house of representatives has passed more than $50 billion in aid for hurricane sandy victims. this more than ten weeks after the storm r
Current
Jan 16, 2013 3:00am PST
to pay our bills. is he winning this debt ceiling battle? i know you have written about this on slate. >> i think he is winning intel correct annually and emotional and probably politically with the public but it remains to be seen what congress is going to do. we haven't seen a lot of engagement with congress yet. the debt ceiling somewhere between february 15th and the end of february, early march. we don't know quite exactly where it will be. we don't know whether john boehner and the republican house will look him in the eye and say we are not doing anything. it's a mystery right now. >> in fact, politico reported this week over housealf of house republicans say they are willing to shut the government down if they don't get the spending cuts that they are demanding as a price for raising the debt ceiling. >> that is what they are saying. it's still far enough out so that it could all be posturing. even if i accept it -- and i do -- that half of the house members actually believe that as we get closer, as the pressure builds, corporate executives will start calling the republ
MSNBC
Jan 16, 2013 1:00am PST
debt ceiling proposal. that was from the last time the house republicans threatened the country with defaulting on our debt back in 2011. dennis ross, you probably should have calibrated your place in line a little better. throw a democrat in there ahead of you when you realize that's what you're going to get. get there in time for the repeal prohibition amendment next time. that's more fun. if you have found yourself at home constitutionally -- forgive me, constitutionally incapable of getting excited over having another fight about the debt ceiling this year, if this isn't exciting because it just feels like groundhog day to you, oh my god, i've got reckless brinksmanship fatigue, it is true that it's hard to get excited over something we have done before. it is 2013 now. remember when it happened it was a total disaster. even if you just ignore the political consequences, if you just look at the economic impact, it was a self-imposed economic disaster caused by washington refusing to do something that it needs to do and that it has done dozens of times before. republicans just ref
FOX News
Jan 16, 2013 2:00am PST
ongoing debate on capitol hill over the debt ceiling. charles krauthammer is taking on the on thepresident's approach. the president isn't interested in fixing the problem but instead breaking the gop. >> the entire strategy for the fiscal cliff was to split the republica republicans. it hading in to do, his offers had nothing do with solving the fiscal he shall ue or solving the debt. he showed no interest in reducing the debt since the day he was elected in 2008. he appoints a commission two years later he ignore it is. he never talked about structural cuts or entitlements. he wants the entitlement states if you want a european entitlement state you need taxation. his strategy is to split, fracture and therefore neuter the republicans in the house. that is all that stands between him and total dominance in washington in his second term. he wants a return to 2009 and 2010 when he had control of both houses he had a super majority in the senate huge majority in the house and revolutionized healthcare and hugest spending in galactic history. that's what he wants. >> the preside
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 63 (some duplicates have been removed)